What do Democrats stand for right now?

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: irwincur
I think they have their issues. But they sure don't have solutions. But, how is this really different than the last 60 years - when they came up with these 'so called issues'. The current Democratic party is one that is stuck in the past. Their incesscent race baiting, age baiting, scare tactics no longer have the same effect that they one did. Decades of truth are being revealed.

What is their excuse for not solving any of their problems? They had sole control of the DC power base for nearly all of the last sicty years. Sorry, there is no excuse. The fact of the matter is, they do not want to solve these problems - or they would run out of issues to bring up election after election.

Yeah they suck as bad as the Republicans

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: summit

and finding the 9 BILLION missing in Iraq (that Republicans don?t want you to know about, and will not look into).

9 billion missing what? people? sorry buddy we are still at about 6 billion give or take a hundred million. Democrats are losing the minority votes. Bush puts more minorities in the courts and cabinet than anyone else before him. Democrats will jump ship to this new party I heard its called communism. j/k. I agree with daveymark stop putting republicans down to make yourselves feel good about yourselves.

I have nothing against republicans. I do have a problem with lying leaders, crooked management, and corrupt goverment.

Hey, do you suppose that might be what Democrats stand for these days??????

 

[cKGunslinger]

Democrats 'stand" for the sames things that, hopefully, all Americans stand for: The bettering of our nation and it's citizens through fair and beneficial legislations that respects and conforms to our Constitution's ideals of individual freedom and justice for each and every one of us.

Now, perhaps the OP's question is what issues have the Dems decided are of top priority and are focusing thier efforts on, and what are thier proposed solutions? That, I do not know the answer to, but as a citizen and typical non-Democrat voter, I am willing to voice my concerns off the top of my head and open up the floor for proposals.

---

1) We need to end the current war in Iraq in a swift and decisive manner. Simply withdrawing is not an option, as it would leave an important and turmoiled section of the world in chaos that would have global-reaching consequences.

2) Social Security is becoming outdated and is viewed as a money sink for many working Americans. The system need a revamp in one way or another that is viewed to be both fair and worthwhile by all participants.

3) The economy is always an issue. Things are certainly not bad, currently, but what will be done to continue to improve the situation, while maintaining a fair tax burden on all contributors?

4) Our workforce and educational system are slowing falling behind as we grow towards a global economy. What measures will be taken to ensure that the US remains a relevant and key player in the system?

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: umbrella39
Oh and this Democrat stands for opening and installing his GTA San Anrdreas for the PC from the nice UPS lady that just came. Be back in a few days I have not played it on any of the consoles yet so this should be a hoot. L8r

Eek! Initials reviews have been that the PC port of the game is horribly bug-ridden and containes *less* features and graphical enhancements than even the PS2 version.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: daveymark
I never hear anything about what the Democrats stand for, all I hear is anti Bush rhetoric for the most part. Anyone?

What did the Republicans stand for when Clinton ran the country?

A better question would be: does either party actually stand for anything anymore? I mean, Republicans are supposed to be the "small government" party, but this administration is far from that. Democrats are supposed to be big on social programs blah blah, but the last Democratic president... that was hardly his strength. It seems like to me that only administrations stand for anything, and they attach themselves arbitrarily to a party. The parties are convenient platforms for these administrations becasue they know around half the country will vote for them either way, simply because of the party name.

I think financial programs are out of the picture now and party affiliation has gotten down to social issues, ie abortion.

 

[cKGunslinger]

[secret Dem/Rep meeting]

Chair: "Ok, so it's decided. Both parties will do whatever it takes to make its officials as obscenely weathly and powerful as possible, and screw over the US citizens at every opportunity, while we garner voter support based on nothing more than mosty unimportant wedge issues that will be debated uselessly on cable news and internet forums."

Unamimous: "Agreed!"

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Democrats 'stand" for the sames things that, hopefully, all Americans stand for: The bettering of our nation and it's citizens through fair and beneficial legislations that respects and conforms to our Constitution's ideals of individual freedom and justice for each and every one of us.

Now, perhaps the OP's question is what issues have the Dems decided are of top priority and are focusing thier efforts on, and what are thier proposed solutions? That, I do not know the answer to, but as a citizen and typical non-Democrat voter, I am willing to voice my concerns off the top of my head and open up the floor for proposals.

---

1) We need to end the current war in Iraq in a swift and decisive manner. Simply withdrawing is not an option, as it would leave an important and turmoiled section of the world in chaos that would have global-reaching consequences.

2) Social Security is becoming outdated and is viewed as a money sink for many working Americans. The system need a revamp in one way or another that is viewed to be both fair and worthwhile by all participants.

3) The economy is always an issue. Things are certainly not bad, currently, but what will be done to continue to improve the situation, while maintaining a fair tax burden on all contributors?

4) Our workforce and educational system are slowing falling behind as we grow towards a global economy. What measures will be taken to ensure that the US remains a relevant and key player in the system?

Those are all good issues. The problem is that the country is so polarized on how best to handle them that neither side can drum up enough support to get anything done.

1) If the Iraqi's can't organize themselves into a governing body with a strong military arm to enforce it's laws, there isn't a way out for us. We've done what we could. I would rather get us out right now because I think Iraq's going to remain turmoil whatever we do. I know you won't go for that, so how about one big ass American military base to provide support for the Iraqi goverment until they get there military developed. I would want a time limit on how long we give the Iraqi's to develop that force.

2)No way, that's going to be a BIG fight.

3)CEO's recieved an average 9% raise last year while the rest of the country didn't even keep up with inflation. you tell me what a fair tax burden is.

4) I'm all for improving education. I support publicly funded Vocational Education schools and for the best/brightest students produced from these schools more free education

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Democrats 'stand" for the sames things that, hopefully, all Americans stand for: The bettering of our nation and it's citizens through fair and beneficial legislations that respects and conforms to our Constitution's ideals of individual freedom and justice for each and every one of us.

[snip]

Those are all good issues. The problem is that the country is so polarized on how best to handle them that neither side can drum up enough support to get anything done.

1) If the Iraqi's can't organize themselves into a governing body with a strong military arm to enforce it's laws, there isn't a way out for us. We've done what we could. I would rather get us out right now because I think Iraq's going to remain turmoil whatever we do. I know you won't go for that, so how about one big ass American military base to provide support for the Iraqi goverment until they get there military developed. I would want a time limit on how long we give the Iraqi's to develop that force.

2)No way, that's going to be a BIG fight.

3)CEO's recieved an average 9% raise last year while the rest of the country didn't even keep up with inflation. you tell me what a fair tax burden is.

4) I'm all for improving education. I support publicly funded Vocational Education schools and for the best/brightest students produced from these schools more free education

1) I don't know the solution either. We will obviously never "get all the terrorists" or anything like that, but we started this mess and should really make sure we leave the place with some sort of stability, for all our sakes. But someone running for President better damn well have a detailed plan. And I don't mean like Kerry's "Plan" during the last election which basically said, "We'll get more global support and win so we can bring our troops home." :roll:

2) It's too late to say, "Aww.. just let it be." For better or worse, the issue has been moved to the front burner and needs to be addressed. The Dems need a plan if they want to stay in the game. Simply shrugging off issues may work for the incumbant party, but the challenger always has the burden of bringing something to the table.

3) That's the price of Capitalism. If the employees don't like it, they can quit, start their own businesses, hire only American workers, stay located only on American soil, and make themselves low-paid CEOs. I wish them the best of luck with that. "Tax the rich!" is not and has never been a workable solution to maintaining a healthy economy, not matter how many people are envious of successful individuals.

4) We need fairly substantial education reform in the US. NCLB and other token, do-nothing initiatives are not the answer. We probably need an expansive overhaul, which will cost losts of $$. End the war, rework SS, limit federal spending and you'll have more than enough without having to increase the tax burden.

 

[Stunt]

You can start by looking at the platform...
The Democratic Party is a mixed bag of many different people, very similar to the Republican Party.

There are many people within the Republican party who are exclusively social conservatives, some are exclusively fiscal conservatives (sucks to be these guys right now), some are neo-conservative, some are just afraid of the terrorists or just like Bush; of course there are some who are a combination of these different views.

Similarly in the Democratic Party there are social liberals, fiscal conservatives (pushed away by Bush, probably not drawn to kerry), fiscal liberals, anti-war advocates, and again combinations of these.

Similarly while the Rep's have both non-religious and religious, so do the Dem's. Republican Christians want an active role in forcing Christianity theories on the whole population. Democrat Christians take a passive role and allow for individual choice.

 

[1EZduzit]

1) Kerry's plan had merit, but no real detail. It's going to be tough for a challanger to give any detail on how to bring any kind of global support when he's not in a position to make any deals.

I think Bush got us into this mess and the burden lies on him to get us out of it before his term ends. 6 years should be enough time to get a military trained and operating.

2) You mean the issue was tried to be moved to the front bumper. If someone wants to change SS, let them put a detailed plan on the table. Until i see one that works for me, i will resist any further changes.

3)Well, you can't get blood out of a rock so the tax increases are going to fall on the middle class. Lower, middle and upper. Considering the CEO's are out numbered and the current state of the budget deficit, i can't support any tax decreases.

I don't think you were here, but there was a thread earlier this week and somebody brought the idea of a flat tax up again. I would really like to see a detailed plan on how that would work. If ALL tax havens were eliminated, I'm not so sure that the rich wouldn't end up paying more then they are now.

The only way I would consider a flat tax is if we balanced the budget every year. That way, bad management of the goverment would be fresh in the minds of voters. If you get raped on your tax bill for a couple of years then the incumbent is going to have a hard time getting reelected. It would go a long way towards eliminating career politicains and I'd be willing to pay more becasue I think in the long run everybody would be better off. Just think, every project would have a cost/benifit ratio right along with it!!

4) There is no doubt in my mind that my plan would pay for itself in spades. Remeber the Marshall plan? i think this would work like that and ALL the benifits would be for Americans

 

[daveymark]

thanks guys, good thread. actual discussion instead of name calling (for the most part)

 

[NeenerNeener]

8.8 billion was the number I read from the Iraqi reconstruction fund. ah, forget it. i'm tired of fighting with those who would use a sledgehammer to kill a gnat and not think of what it will do to the wall.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: randym431

What do Democrats stand for right now?

Simple. Correcting the great injustice of a lying president. Trying to stop the packing of courts with right wing nut cases, not to mention the U.N. Making people like Delay pay for their crimes against tax payers. Pointing out that there is no such thing as being "pro abortion" ( no one says "hey, lets kill some unborn today for fun" or "hey, I like getting pg so I can kill it"). But the bottom line... exposing the right wing hypocrites for what they are. Then, Democrats can move on to repairing the country and finding the 9 BILLION missing in Iraq (that Republicans don?t want you to know about, and will not look into).
Ps...And kicking Delays corrupt ass out of government service.

Yep, you are right! They stand for hate, being poor losers and just generally losers.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: daveymark
I never hear anything about what the Democrats stand for, all I hear is anti Bush rhetoric for the most part. Anyone?

Is this an honest question or is this just a statement to the effect that Democrats don't stand for anything except being against Bush?

They mostly just stnad for wanting to be in power and hating anything that keeps them from it.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: daveymark
I never hear anything about what the Democrats stand for, all I hear is anti Bush rhetoric for the most part. Anyone?

What did the Republicans stand for when Clinton ran the country?

Getting a Republican elected. That plan worked, whats next?

 

[Zebo]

In WWII President Roosevelt attacked Germany. Had he been a republican today the mainstream nedia would have eaten him alive for attacking a country that did not attack us.

Check your facts jack, Hitler attacked us.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: daveymark
I never hear anything about what the Democrats stand for, all I hear is anti Bush rhetoric for the most part. Anyone?

What did the Republicans stand for when Clinton ran the country?

Getting a Republican elected. That plan worked, whats next?

That's not something you stand for...unless of course you have no real agenda besides being in power. While you may find that admirable, I prefer my political groups to actually have a plan for DOING something with their power once they get it.

Actually, the Democrats (and more broadly, the "anti-Bush" crowd) stands for quite a bit. Verious things I've heard have been gay rights, an intelligent approach to the war on terror, repairing our relations with other countries, a more critical look at post-9/11 laws like the Patriot Act, addressing the problems of government overspending, and many more.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

I've always been fiscally conservative and socially liberal. That's why I'm a Democrat, since the current Republican President is neither. At least with Kerry I got one.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: daveymark
I never hear anything about what the Democrats stand for, all I hear is anti Bush rhetoric for the most part. Anyone?

What did the Republicans stand for when Clinton ran the country?

Getting a Republican elected. That plan worked, whats next?

That's not something you stand for...unless of course you have no real agenda besides being in power. While you may find that admirable, I prefer my political groups to actually have a plan for DOING something with their power once they get it.

Look at what you just typed and reflect on the last election. Democratic Party and candidates platform as verbalized by them was simply to "Oust Bush". My point!

Actually, the Democrats (and more broadly, the "anti-Bush" crowd) stands for quite a bit. Verious things I've heard have been gay rights, an intelligent approach to the war on terror, repairing our relations with other countries, a more critical look at post-9/11 laws like the Patriot Act, addressing the problems of government overspending, and many more.

They speak of and dsream of doing the above on their great white hourse (as soon as they are returned to POWER), but have no solid plan for any of it. Just words! 30 years of liberal rule in this country and Gays still don't have rights? Why didn't they fix that while they were in power? Intelligent approach to the war on terror? What are you smoking? Back to the Clinton rule by Executive Order - is that your more critical look at post 9/11 laws? Clinton fixed government overspending OK. Reduced military, brought on so many contractors to replace government employees that housing in DC tripled! If it hadn't been for the Bill Gates bubble, Clinton would have been selling pencils on the street.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Condor
They speak of and dsream of doing the above on their great white hourse (as soon as they are returned to POWER), but have no solid plan for any of it. Just words! 30 years of liberal rule in this country and Gays still don't have rights? Why didn't they fix that while they were in power? Intelligent approach to the war on terror? What are you smoking? Back to the Clinton rule by Executive Order - is that your more critical look at post 9/11 laws? Clinton fixed government overspending OK. Reduced military, brought on so many contractors to replace government employees that housing in DC tripled! If it hadn't been for the Bill Gates bubble, Clinton would have been selling pencils on the street.

I still don't see an answer to arsebanned's question in there.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: daveymark
I never hear anything about what the Democrats stand for, all I hear is anti Bush rhetoric for the most part. Anyone?

That's about all they stand for...anti-Bush.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: daveymark
I never hear anything about what the Democrats stand for, all I hear is anti Bush rhetoric for the most part. Anyone?

That's about all they stand for...anti-Bush.

Here's a good example of someone who just read the original post and posted the usual knee-jerk response.

 

[Jediab]

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice

Originally posted by: daveymark
I never hear anything about what the Democrats stand for, all I hear is anti Bush rhetoric for the most part. Anyone?

It depends on who you are talking about. Unless you are actually trying to lump all Democrats into a single mold. When you talk to a democrat 1:1 (not a radical) you will find that their beliefs and desires are the same as conservatives.

An example is ecology. Probably a higher percentage of democrats at least claim to care about ecology than republicans. Although both groups in equal percentages actually try to preserve. Certainly a higher percentage of democrats go radical on this issue. Just like a higer percentage of republicans go radical on abortion. Radicals are dangerous and in the two just cited some of the radicals actually believe murder is an honorable solution to prevent murder. Huh?

Liberals tend to rely on emotion more than logic and conservatives tend to rely on logic more than emotion. EITHER one without being tempered by the other is wrong. You can't look at these forums and always tell this because thee motional side typically takes over. Plus, that is only a tendency not an absolute. One way to notice this is to see how often liberals say "I feel" vs the conservatives "I think or I believe."

The real problem is that the democrats that I used to be a part of are no longer in control of their party. If they ever were. BTW, it seems as the conservatives have lost control of the republican party, which is why so many are turning to the Libertarian party.

Regardless of what the elites (mainstream media, hollywood, politicians, etc.) say, this country is not divided except perhaps on a few issues.

Issues of abortion. Not all democrats want abortion for convenience and definitely not all republicans want abotrion abolished. Despite what the media says. True, some like Senator Pelosi think a woman should have the right to abort her child up until the time she leaves the hospital, but again, Pelosi is a radical not the norm. Thus, most think that abortion should be legal for the same reasons President Regan stood for. I happen to believe in another reason but neither of us include "the prom dress won't fit right" as a valid reason.

Issues of education. Actually, the only difference here is that democrats want to hire more administrators at astronomical prices and raise taxes to pay for them and republicans want to throw a test every week to see if the child learned to sneeze correctly. Both are doing it for the same reason that a Hollywood Director/Producer stated in a PBS interview. "It doesn't matter if what we do helps it only matters that we do something." So, each turns to what they think will help. Who gets hurt in this battle? The children; which is us.

Issues of defense. Most liberals want to be like Europe. Rely on some other country to defend us. I'm all for pulling our troops out of Europe. They are primarily Fascist anyway. Bring those troops back home and have them defend our borders instead of theirs. This is NOT to say that the liberals dont like using the military. President Clinton deployed the troops more than any other president in the history of the United States. Most of the major actions were done with no support and against the wishes of the U.N. Sadly many at least appeared to be ploys to bail him out of trouble, but I dont know that each case can be specifically proved.

Also, take a look at every war. Democrats started most of them. Example, "Nixons" Vietnam.... Kennedy started the war, LBJ escalated it a couple of times, Nixon pulled the troops out.

In WWII President Roosevelt attacked Germany. Had he been a republican today the mainstream nedia would have eaten him alive for attacking a country that did not attack us. Now, consider that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would have opposed this action (unless they are hypocrites) because each has said that no one should fight anyone of their same color. Thus, Roosevelt being "white" should not have fought against Hitler who was also (sadly) "white." Oh, maybe they are hypocrites.


Socialism. Most liberals, based on the arguments I hear, believe that everyone should have equal wealth regardless of their effort. In deed, if you CAN work harder or more efficiently you should be required to work harder. To advance socialism they attempt to try and spread Communism or, more recently, Fascism because Fascism can be guised as a Democracy. The motives of many are benign as they sincerely want to help the disadvantaged. Conservatives do as well, it is just that conservatives don't want to help those who merely want the help but don't need it. (Explanation: The message of socialism is that each should work according to their ability but the practice is that everyone tends to work less and the truly lazy are not punished. Check out government employees if you don't believe me.)

That is enough.

In reality we are not divided. It behooves the elites to say we are because they gain more power by doing so.

Well this just about sums up what I think. Nicely put.

 

[CellarDoor]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
I've always been fiscally conservative and socially liberal. That's why I'm a Democrat, since the current Republican President is neither. At least with Kerry I got one.

And you know what? I'd bet the majority of the country is the same damn way. Problem is we had a choice between a douche and a turd sandwich for president (though the douche was a better pick IMO). Throw some moderates out there in '08 and the country wins.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Zebo

In WWII President Roosevelt attacked Germany. Had he been a republican today the mainstream nedia would have eaten him alive for attacking a country that did not attack us.

Check your facts jack, Hitler attacked us.

He did? When?