Fundamental Flaws with the Democratic Party

[PLAYER57832]

ah.. just ready to shut down and saw this thread. Will post later, if its still up (but may have to be next week.. I am going to be pretty busy in the next few days).

[tzor]

Item #1: Organizing for Action

So why is O for A a "fundamental flaw?"

(There is a minor flaw; you really need not to recycle acronyms; Obama's original campaign machine was "Organizing for America." It's way too easy to get the two confused and thus people would assume that this is Obama's election/reelection organization. But that's probably on purpose. Still if I had a dine for every reporter who has made this mistake and called it "America" I would have enough money to ... well ride the subway at least, perhaps get a train ride into the city off peak.)

[thegreekdog]

Item #1: Organizing for Action

So why is O for A a "fundamental flaw?"

(There is a minor flaw; you really need not to recycle acronyms; Obama's original campaign machine was "Organizing for America." It's way too easy to get the two confused and thus people would assume that this is Obama's election/reelection organization. But that's probably on purpose. Still if I had a dine for every reporter who has made this mistake and called it "America" I would have enough money to ... well ride the subway at least, perhaps get a train ride into the city off peak.)

What?

[tzor]

If the thread is "Fundamental Flaws" you need to actually list "flaws" ... as in things that hinder them from getting elections. O for A is pretty effective at getting that uniform message across; I can't see how it is a flaw.

Apparently I was right to be confused; Organizing for America became Organizing for Action. But if Organizing for America was founded by the Democratic National Committee, how can the comical mouth of Sauron (aka the Jay Carney Show) claim that this group is "independent?" (Oh that's right, because he lies all the time, but this is not "Fundamental Flaws of the White House" so I'll let that slide.)

[spurgistan]

Rep John Fleming R-LA: "President to House GOP: federal government is not a family; balancing budget not important"

The first of those two sentences is objectively true. The second is a matter of opinion, though I would add the words "right now, while we're still barely teetering on the brink of recession" to the end.

[thegreekdog]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 17491.html

[thegreekdog]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 10132.html

[PLAYER57832]

I wonder if there are any big medical device companies in Minnesota, Pennsylvania, or Indiana.

Minnesota - Meditronic Inc.
Pennsylvania - AmerisourceBergen Corporation
Indiana - Eli Lilly

More correctly, the Republicans want to cut anything that benefits average Americans, but not the things that benefit their big business cronies... and they will do this while proclaiming "family values" and "low taxes"... never mind that its their policies that turned our country into a deficit hog, at the expense of our futures.

Your point?

[PLAYER57832]

2. Trying to Deep-Six Obamacare

But now that they feel its future is protected and it’s safe from repeal, Democrats are becoming more vocal about parts of the law that they want changed or eliminated — even kids’ dental coverage. Four Senate Democrats — Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken of Minnesota, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Joe Donnelly of Indiana — are co-sponsoring a Republican bill to repeal the law’s medical-device tax. Ten House Democrats are co-sponsoring a bill to repeal the law’s Independent Payment Advisory Board, a controversial panel that is designed to keep Medicare spending in check.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/a ... 88717.html

Who doesn't like political compromise?
[/tongue-in-cheek]

This is one of the main problems with any position supporting public policy X. Public policies must go through this political process--where exemptions are made and the reasonable parts of the policy are resisted and sometimes removed (e.g. that advisory board, that medical-device tax).

This is one of many avenues where the favored policies of well-intended voters lead to bad outcomes.

So, according to you, the fact that Democrats are pushing for things that people want is just inherently bad? Or what is it you are trying to say?

[PLAYER57832]

The fundamental flaw of the Democratic Party is that they are, like Republicans, way too beholden to big donors. Whenever the focus is on primarily money, then its easy to forget the purpose of that money, of government and to ignore what really needs to be done.


Another flaw is that while there was a time when the Democrats sort of represented the party of average people, protecting the base of this country, they have allowed themselves to be silent on too many issues.

They have allowed Republicans to literally change the definitions of words, to change how things are even understand. Instead of saying that denying Homosexuals basic rights is oppressing people who don't think the same, they allow the Republicans to term it "family values."

Similar, Abortion became "choice" even though NO ONE (sane) really and truly "jsut choooses" to have an abortion. As long as the pretense is put forward, folks don't have to acknowledge that there are real and true reasons why some children are just better off not being born... under ANY religious belief and that sometimes "advanced medical care" doesn't really mean "advanced life" , but means that man instead of God is deciding that these children simply "must" live... regardless of what that "life" entails.

Democrats have specifically NOT Pushed for various environmental protections that we ened to have ANY future. And have let Republicans gut our previously mostly wonderful educational system (particularly university system) in favor of a system that boosts the worst schools to barely OK, but keeps the rest down as well.


There is more, but the flaws of the Democratic Party are too many to list in one thread, pretty much like the flaws in the Republicans are too many.

[thegreekdog]

I wonder if there are any big medical device companies in Minnesota, Pennsylvania, or Indiana.

Minnesota - Meditronic Inc.
Pennsylvania - AmerisourceBergen Corporation
Indiana - Eli Lilly

More correctly, the Republicans want to cut anything that benefits average Americans, but not the things that benefit their big business cronies... and they will do this while proclaiming "family values" and "low taxes"... never mind that its their policies that turned our country into a deficit hog, at the expense of our futures.

Your point?

My point is you're being dumb.

[tzor]

So, according to you, the fact that Democrats are pushing for things that people want is just inherently bad? Or what is it you are trying to say?

Commercials exist not to give "people what they want" but to convince people that "they want it." Democrats don't really push for things that people want, they convince people to want what they give them.

(Of course that's not a "flaw" in the party; that's why the party wins!)

The fact that every policy almost always has the opposite effect of what is advertised ... doesn't really matter. The opposite effect is blamed on something else.

[PLAYER57832]

I wonder if there are any big medical device companies in Minnesota, Pennsylvania, or Indiana.

Minnesota - Meditronic Inc.
Pennsylvania - AmerisourceBergen Corporation
Indiana - Eli Lilly

More correctly, the Republicans want to cut anything that benefits average Americans, but not the things that benefit their big business cronies... and they will do this while proclaiming "family values" and "low taxes"... never mind that its their policies that turned our country into a deficit hog, at the expense of our futures.

Your point?

My point is you're being dumb.

Nice try, but simply saying you disagree doesn't mean I am "dumb".

[PLAYER57832]

So, according to you, the fact that Democrats are pushing for things that people want is just inherently bad? Or what is it you are trying to say?

Commercials exist not to give "people what they want" but to convince people that "they want it." Democrats don't really push for things that people want, they convince people to want what they give them.

(Of course that's not a "flaw" in the party; that's why the party wins!)

The fact that every policy almost always has the opposite effect of what is advertised ... doesn't really matter. The opposite effect is blamed on something else.

Actually, I would say that the Democrats have NOT been doing that great a job of either having a good meassage OR of convincing anyone. Their only real bonus of late is that the Republicans are so blatantly and patently wrong, folks are willing to take almost any viable alternative.

I mean, it doesn't take a genius to understand that homosexual marriages won't exactly threaten the security of the country.

[BigBallinStalin]

2. Trying to Deep-Six Obamacare

But now that they feel its future is protected and it’s safe from repeal, Democrats are becoming more vocal about parts of the law that they want changed or eliminated — even kids’ dental coverage. Four Senate Democrats — Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken of Minnesota, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Joe Donnelly of Indiana — are co-sponsoring a Republican bill to repeal the law’s medical-device tax. Ten House Democrats are co-sponsoring a bill to repeal the law’s Independent Payment Advisory Board, a controversial panel that is designed to keep Medicare spending in check.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/a ... 88717.html

Who doesn't like political compromise?
[/tongue-in-cheek]

This is one of the main problems with any position supporting public policy X. Public policies must go through this political process--where exemptions are made and the reasonable parts of the policy are resisted and sometimes removed (e.g. that advisory board, that medical-device tax).

This is one of many avenues where the favored policies of well-intended voters lead to bad outcomes.

So, according to you, the fact that Democrats are pushing for things that people want is just inherently bad? Or what is it you are trying to say?

They pass Bill X and with it, some means of paying for it, then some of the very Democrats who passed bill X are seeking ways to remove some of those means for paying for it. If they're successful, then all they've done is spent more money and then removed some of the means to pay for it.

That would be extremely stupid in any business, but with government it makes total sense. Most voters don't understand how this works, and if they do, they don't care because they still want their government goodies.

[PLAYER57832]

2. Trying to Deep-Six Obamacare

But now that they feel its future is protected and it’s safe from repeal, Democrats are becoming more vocal about parts of the law that they want changed or eliminated — even kids’ dental coverage. Four Senate Democrats — Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken of Minnesota, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Joe Donnelly of Indiana — are co-sponsoring a Republican bill to repeal the law’s medical-device tax. Ten House Democrats are co-sponsoring a bill to repeal the law’s Independent Payment Advisory Board, a controversial panel that is designed to keep Medicare spending in check.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/a ... 88717.html

Who doesn't like political compromise?
[/tongue-in-cheek]

This is one of the main problems with any position supporting public policy X. Public policies must go through this political process--where exemptions are made and the reasonable parts of the policy are resisted and sometimes removed (e.g. that advisory board, that medical-device tax).

This is one of many avenues where the favored policies of well-intended voters lead to bad outcomes.

So, according to you, the fact that Democrats are pushing for things that people want is just inherently bad? Or what is it you are trying to say?

They pass Bill X and with it, some means of paying for it, then some of the very Democrats who passed bill X are seeking ways to remove some of those means for paying for it. If they're successful, then all they've done is spent more money and then removed some of the means to pay for it.

That would be extremely stupid in any business, but with government it makes total sense. Most voters don't understand how this works, and if they do, they don't care because they still want their government goodies.

Very simplistically and superficially, yes. However, let’s bring in some history here.

I would say that this is happening because few politicians can afford to actually have a real “vision” or perhaps just that our ideas of who “knows stuff” has shifted so highly in the past 3-4 decades. That is, it was possible for scientists in the 1950’s to come up with evidence and convince folks that we needed, say to floridate our water, pay for school lunches or even seek alternatives to oil. (that last requires some explanation… scientists then were not really and truly seriously considering that because they did not have the knowledge we do now, about when they had done so, other sources were found).

Today, the widest consensus of scientists in the history of our planet saying “global warming is real” gets razzes and jeers. Partly, life has sped up, partly, there is so much more information out there its getting harder and harder to tie it together sensibly and partly, those in power have consolidated themselves not just in the US, but internationally to such an extent they rival the robber Barons of the 1920’s. The next step is to be like the Gregorian monarches, but on a global scale.

Anyway, while the Democrats are not innocent, this is really a Republican game. Reagan started it, but he was directed by people who made real sense. Bush did not even have to make much pretense.

But here is the thing. The damage caused by BP was very permanent and long-lasting, not just a PR game or an economic blip. Global climate change is real and will have real impacts that cannot just be changed by economic games and pretenses.

NO political party or views will matter unless they all start paying attention to real problems brought forth by science. Economics can be a tool, as can various political games, but the goal MUST ultimate be resting upon what is best for humanity.


OH, in other words, that IS what business does, its just that they pass the costs onto other people.

[thegreekdog]

I wonder if there are any big medical device companies in Minnesota, Pennsylvania, or Indiana.

Minnesota - Meditronic Inc.
Pennsylvania - AmerisourceBergen Corporation
Indiana - Eli Lilly

More correctly, the Republicans want to cut anything that benefits average Americans, but not the things that benefit their big business cronies... and they will do this while proclaiming "family values" and "low taxes"... never mind that its their policies that turned our country into a deficit hog, at the expense of our futures.

Your point?

My point is you're being dumb.

Nice try, but simply saying you disagree doesn't mean I am "dumb".

You're dumb because you denigrate the Republican Party for corporate cronyism while at the same time supporting the Democratic Party which engages in corporate croynism. I would say "hypocrit" but I don't think you're informed enough to understand that the Democratic Party is as involved in corporate cronyism as Republicans. So... I label you dumb.

[tzor]

I mean, it doesn't take a genius to understand that homosexual marriages won't exactly threaten the security of the country.

No I suppose it doesn't, especially when you consider only "security." Mind you, Democrats haven't been quick to jump on the bandwagon. Even Obama was against it before he was for it.

There have been Democrats opposed to same gender marriage (I mean why can't two heterosexuals of the same gender marry each other) and Republicans in support of it.

[tzor]

That is, it was possible for scientists in the 1950’s to come up with evidence and convince folks that we needed, say to floridate our water, pay for school lunches or even seek alternatives to oil. (that last requires some explanation… scientists then were not really and truly seriously considering that because they did not have the knowledge we do now, about when they had done so, other sources were found).

OMG ROTFLOL

Did you just argue about the scientific history of water fluoridation? Ah yes the 1950's. Look, I'm not going to act all snobbish at the past but ... that is so funny. Current studies suggest that ingesting fluoride is not a good thing; it might make a good mouth wash but it's not effective and even harmful when enough is ingested.

Exposure to excessive consumption of fluoride over a lifetime may lead to increased likelihood of bone fractures in adults, and may result in effects on bone leading to pain and tenderness. Children aged 8 years and younger exposed to excessive amounts of fluoride have an increased chance of developing pits in the tooth enamel, along with a range of cosmetic effects to teeth.

50 REASONS TO OPPOSE FLUORIDATION

Remember that the shoe fitting fluoroscope was still in use into the 50's. Yes, those were the time of real "science" ... if it didn't kill you, that is.

[stahrgazer]

Similar, Abortion became "choice" even though NO ONE (sane) really and truly "jsut choooses" to have an abortion.

Sorry, you're wrong; some folks DO "just choose" to have an abortion, for reasons having nothing to do with the viability of the fetus or danger-from-birth for the mother. Calling it "pro choice" is accurate.

Implying they're insane to do so.... well, name-calling is a fundamental flaw of both parties.

[Played out]

OMG ROTFLOL

You may think that posting lol makes a good counterpoint, but it's simply a dodge from the REAL point about scientific oppression. If there weren't so many diapers to be changed I'd refute you.

[tzor]

You may think that posting lol makes a good counterpoint

Time is also a problem on my side as well, but a post that (in this order no less) ... praises the glories of the 1950's, condemns the "robber barons" of the 1920's, and then blames Reagan for everything is so bizarrely wrong that whole thesis papers could be dedicated to showing how absurdly wrong that is. Alas, I don't have the time to write such a paper and no one here would be bothered to read it.

You know, personally I blame it on FDR, but to be honest he got his ideas from a Republican Relative of his. (Her strange view of history.)

P.S. I don't think you will ever convince a former residence of Key West that the "Robber Barons" were the cause of all evil. It's not going to happen.

[PLAYER57832]

You're dumb because you denigrate the Republican Party for corporate cronyism while at the same time supporting the Democratic Party which engages in corporate croynism. I would say "hypocrit" but I don't think you're informed enough to understand that the Democratic Party is as involved in corporate cronyism as Republicans. So... I label you dumb.

Oh please... and you support the Republican party while dengrating much of what they do.


I actually do not, as you claim, "support the Democratic Party". I don't contribute to them in funds or effort, do not participate in campaigns for the Democratic Party. I DO support and work for local individuals of ALL parties, based on the individual.
I voted for Obama because he was better than Romney -- not a lot better, but better. Twisting that into "well you support the Democrats" is not just stupid, its the kind of thinkin that is getting in the way of real solutions.

I am attacking the Democratic party here because that is the thread. I criticized the Republicans because that was that thread, though I stayed out a tad because I knew so many of you were just going to say "well,.... we know what YOU think..".

I look at the individual, not the party. The only time I consider the party is when I have 2 candidates who are truly equal or, who just don't say anything about themselves except their party, then I look at trying to balance things, but that is pretty rare. It happens occasionally in local elections, mostly when there was a last minute addition to the ballot, and its mostly people that 90% of the town know... I just don't. (usually, even then, I am able to at least ask around and get some information on the person).

[thegreekdog]

Similar, Abortion became "choice" even though NO ONE (sane) really and truly "jsut choooses" to have an abortion.

Sorry, you're wrong; some folks DO "just choose" to have an abortion, for reasons having nothing to do with the viability of the fetus or danger-from-birth for the mother. Calling it "pro choice" is accurate.

Implying they're insane to do so.... well, name-calling is a fundamental flaw of both parties.

I don't understand where Player gets this idea that abortions are not chosen. I've posted this link at least five times and she has yet to respond to it.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html

[thegreekdog]

You're dumb because you denigrate the Republican Party for corporate cronyism while at the same time supporting the Democratic Party which engages in corporate croynism. I would say "hypocrit" but I don't think you're informed enough to understand that the Democratic Party is as involved in corporate cronyism as Republicans. So... I label you dumb.

Oh please... and you support the Republican party while dengrating much of what they do.


I actually do not, as you claim, "support the Democratic Party". I don't contribute to them in funds or effort, do not participate in campaigns for the Democratic Party. I DO support and work for local individuals of ALL parties, based on the individual.
I voted for Obama because he was better than Romney -- not a lot better, but better. Twisting that into "well you support the Democrats" is not just stupid, its the kind of thinkin that is getting in the way of real solutions.

I am attacking the Democratic party here because that is the thread. I criticized the Republicans because that was that thread, though I stayed out a tad because I knew so many of you were just going to say "well,.... we know what YOU think..".

I look at the individual, not the party. The only time I consider the party is when I have 2 candidates who are truly equal or, who just don't say anything about themselves except their party, then I look at trying to balance things, but that is pretty rare. It happens occasionally in local elections, mostly when there was a last minute addition to the ballot, and its mostly people that 90% of the town know... I just don't. (usually, even then, I am able to at least ask around and get some information on the person).

First, I don't support the Republican Party. I support certain Republicans, sure (like Rand Paul).
Second, you do support the Democrats. You argue incessantly about how Democrats are awesome.