Democrats, why do you support Hillary Clinton?

[Green Arrow]

Forum Democrats, why do you support Hillary Clinton?

Please answer intelligently with thought to her positions and record (not just rhetoric).

[Ethereal]

Mindless partisan loyalty?

[hanger4]

Mindless partisan loyalty?
From the lack of replys you must have hit the nail on the head. Of course it could be a weekend thingy. I believe I will bump this thread up through monday, I'd really like to know.

[Common]

I think most support hillary because they believe she has the best chance to win Potus. Bernie has no chance imho.

I think most democrats know just how flawed and scheming and lieing Hillary is but hyper partisanship on both sides wins at the end of the day. Besides at this point whats the alternative for them, Trump ?

[Chris]

http://i.snag.gy/xk4HB.jpg

No democrats here.

[hanger4]

http://i.snag.gy/xk4HB.jpg

No democrats here.
And some of her supporters have been around most of the day.

[Peter1469]

The answer is "just because (D) is behind her name."

[Green Arrow]

Well, that was entirely disappointing. I'm forced to conclude that either the forum's Democrats are too afraid to defend their own choice, or they can't defend their own choice. It may be a combination of the two.

[hanger4]

Well, that was entirely disappointing. I'm forced to conclude that either the forum's Democrats are too afraid to defend their own choice, or they can't defend their own choice. It may be a combination of the two.
I'm sort of shocked, three of her staunchest supporters have been hear of on on through out the day. Who knew.

[Chris]

I doubt many Reps would defend their favorites. Politics has become attack the other party, hope no one notices you've got nothing positive for yours.

[Green Arrow]

I doubt many Reps would defend their favorites. Politics has become attack the other party, hope no one notices you've got nothing positive for yours.

History shows us politicians that made their campaigns issue-based right up until the 60s. The 60s is when it started to change, and by the last several cycles issue-based campaigning was basically dead. Now it's basically, "Hey, at least I'm not as bad as THOSE guys!"

[Chris]

This is what I think started it:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDTBnsqxZ3k

[Green Arrow]

This is what I think started it:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDTBnsqxZ3k

That's one of the things I was thinking of, actually. I agree.

[Mister D]

History shows us politicians that made their campaigns issue-based right up until the 60s. The 60s is when it started to change, and by the last several cycles issue-based campaigning was basically dead. Now it's basically, "Hey, at least I'm not as bad as THOSE guys!"

I disagree to an extent. I think a lot of the shallowness stems from the lack of any serious ideological or cultural cleavages in American society relatively speaking. We have some racial fault lines but beyond that there does appear to be a remarkable degree of conformity in the US. We all say we wantt he same things and we even define those things the same way. The primary differences lie in how they are to be best achieved.

[Green Arrow]

I disagree to an extent. I think a lot of the shallowness stems from the lack of any serious ideological or cultural cleavages in American society relatively speaking. We have some racial fault lines but beyond that there does appear to be a remarkable degree of conformity in the US. We all say we wantt he same things and we even define those things the same way. The primary differences lie in how they are to be best achieved.

Do you see that as always being the case, or do you agree it's a relatively recent phenomena?

[Bob]

Do you see that as always being the case, or do you agree it's a relatively recent phenomena?

The 1964 attack ad by Johnson is not recent.

Ike attacked the Truman war in Korea.

FDR got away with what he did due to his war.

[Mister D]

Do you see that as always being the case, or do you agree it's a relatively recent phenomena?

I think it has become increasingly true but it was something Tocqueville commented upon (i.e. conformity) early in our history. I think that after the Civil War there was only a singular American spirit (the traditions of the American south having been suppressed). I'd say the Great Depression was a dangerous moment pregnant with the potential for change but aside from that I'm not sure the US has ever passed through a period of significant disagreement about who we are and where we're going, so to speak. The 1960s don't quality, IMO, because the Boomers simply took their parents own values to an extreme.

[Green Arrow]

The 1964 attack ad by Johnson is not recent.

50 years ago is recent when you consider American history is 250 years old.

[Green Arrow]

I think it has become increasingly true but it was something Tocqueville commented upon (i.e. conformity) early in our history. I think that after the Civil War there was only a singular American spirit (the traditions of the American south having been suppressed). I'd say the Great Depression was a dangerous moment pregnant with the potential for change but aside from that I'm not sure the US has ever passed through a period of significant disagreement about who we are and where we're going, so to speak. The 1960s don't quality, IMO, because the Boomers simply took their parents own values to an extreme.

I would point to the late 1800s, early 1900s as another period of potential change. In a way, that period did actually lead to considerable change.

[Mister D]

I would point to the late 1800s, early 1900s as another period of potential change. In a way, that period did actually lead to considerable change.

In what sense? I'm speaking primarily in macro terms (what America is etc.).

[Green Arrow]

In what sense? I'm speaking primarily in macro terms (what America is etc.).

Well, I suppose not really any in a macro sense. I was mainly referring to the storied clashes between the unbridled capitalists and the reformers.

[Tahuyaman]

I think most support hillary because they believe she has the best chance to win Potus. Bernie has no chance imho.

I think most democrats know just how flawed and scheming and lieing Hillary is but hyper partisanship on both sides wins at the end of the day. Besides at this point whats the alternative for them, Trump ?

so, you don't believe they support her views.

[Mister D]

Well, I suppose not really any in a macro sense. I was mainly referring to the storied clashes between the unbridled capitalists and the reformers.

Ah, I understand. Liberal capitalism, however, simply could not have survived without those reforms. Europe experienced the same struggles. Had the resistance to reform been m ore successful than, yeah, I'd say America could very well have been transformed at a fundamental level.

Incidentally, the burdens and human degradation that made those reforms necessary are precisely why we don't have a truly "free market". Western populations quickly decided that placing their lives at the mercy of the market was unacceptable.

[Green Arrow]

Ah, I understand. Liberal capitalism, however, simply could not have survived without those reforms. Europe experienced the same struggles. Had the resistance to reform been m ore successful than, yeah, I'd say America could very well have been transformed at a fundamental level.

Incidentally, the burdens and human degradation that made those reforms necessary are precisely why we don't have a truly "free market". Western populations quickly decided that placing their lives at the mercy of the market was unacceptable.

One reason I laugh at the free marketeers is that capitalism has been so successful in America up to this point precisely because of the reforms made by the labor movement and prominent progressives like Theodore Roosevelt in the late 1800s and early 1900s. That was the economic turning point that made us the richest and most powerful nation on the planet and, in time, lifted our populace to a higher standard of living.

[Mister D]

One reason I laugh at the free marketeers is that capitalism has been so successful in America up to this point precisely because of the reforms made by the labor movement and prominent progressives like Theodore Roosevelt in the late 1800s and early 1900s. That was the economic turning point that made us the richest and most powerful nation on the planet and, in time, lifted our populace to a higher standard of living.

We're going to arouse the ire of our free marketers but whatever. It's happened before. :smiley: You're exactly right though. I just want to reiterate, however, that those reforms interfere with the functioning of the market which is why a free market per se does not exist.

[Green Arrow]

We're going to arouse the ire of our free marketers but whatever. It's happened before. :smiley: You're exactly right though. I just want to reiterate, however, that those reforms interfere with the functioning of the market which is why a free market per se does not exist.

Agreed.

And I'm not exactly the type to give a shit who I piss off :tongue: Especially when around 100 years of history is on my side.

[Mister D]

It has been suggested here (perhaps by you) that the predominant trait of neoconservative is an aggressive foreign policy. I think it's an adherence to liberal economic principles.

[Green Arrow]

It has been suggested here (perhaps by you) that the predominant trait of neoconservative is an aggressive foreign policy. I think it's an adherence to liberal economic principles.

That was me, but I wouldn't disagree that liberal economic principles are another part of it.

[Green Arrow]

maineman, Mark III, Crepitus (do you support Hillary? I can't recall), anybody want to take a stab at a rational defense of your electoral choices?

[Crepitus]

maineman, Mark III, Crepitus (do you support Hillary? I can't recall), anybody want to take a stab at a rational defense of your electoral choices?
I do not support Hillary and I will not be voting for her. At present there is not a candidate I feel I can get behind.

[maineman]

@maineman (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1289), @Mark III (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1742), @Crepitus (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1345) (do you support Hillary? I can't recall), anybody want to take a stab at a rational defense of your electoral choices?

we exist in a two party country. I will vote for the candidate that runs on the platform that I endorse. That candidate will, in all probability, nominate SCUTUS justices that view the Constitution in a manner similar to mine. That is reason enough for me to vote for the candidate of my party, even if I would have preferred another candidate win the nomination.

[Green Arrow]

I do not support Hillary and I will not be voting for her. At present there is not a candidate I feel I can get behind.

I kind of felt that was your position, but I couldn't recall for certain. Thanks.

[IMPress Polly]

Alright, well then, though I am not among those this thread inquires of (I'm neither a Democrat nor an endorser of Clinton), seeing as there's been so little willingness to offer a serious defense of Hillary Clinton here so far, I guess I might as well make the case, such as it is. Why not?

First of all, let me make this point: for the progressive leftist, there really isn't much of a case for preferring Clinton to Sanders, which is why I'll be voting for the latter in my state's Democratic primary. However, from a left-leaning position and perspective, there IS a rational argument to be made for preferring Clinton to whomever the Republicans may nominate (as if there's still any question) and it is as follows:

1) She's not Trump.

2) She's not Trump.

3) She would be the first female president we've ever had. I can't deny that that fact appeals to me.

4) As an explicitly feminist woman who is running to a very substantial degree on gender politics, she displays a unique ability to understand the concerns of most women surrounding issues like reproductive rights, pay equity, the epidemic of sexual assaults, etc.

5) She's not Trump.

6) Many of the positions she's embracing are left of those of President Obama, among which are her stances on the environment, immigration, gun control, the minimum wage, and more. Some of her stances (though certainly not the majority or even close) are actually even left of the ones Sanders is embracing. For example, Sanders is not calling for things like a system of profit sharing or for a crackdown on shadow banking (looseness toward which having been the actual primary cause of the Great Recession, incidentally). Clinton likewise outflanks Sanders on gun control. These factoids should give left-leaning Americans some reassurance not that she'll be what say I might consider perfect, but that a vote for Clinton is nonetheless a vote for actual progress, not just spiritually four more years of Obama.

7) A common criticism of Clinton we find circulated in the press and echoed by nearly all of her detractors is that she poll-tests her positions before taking them. That criticism doesn't really add up though, as she's taken a number of positions that all our polling data clearly suggests are unpopular. For example, the polls clearly indicate that a large majority of Americans support drilling for oil in the Arctic and the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, where Clinton has come out opposed to both. Other typical examples of unpopular positions she's embraced include her proposed executive actions to safeguard immigrant rights and close major loopholes concerning the legality of gun purchases without background checks. Still another, particularly important example at this time is her position on what to do concerning the situation in Syria. According to recent polling on that subject, the majority of Americans now favor sending in thousands of combat troops to occupy that country; Clinton's opposition to doing so, however, remains unchanged. Neither have her views on the issues generally been tremendously inconsistent over the years. Over the last few decades (my lifetime), she has changed her positions on only a small handful of issues, and those changes have consistently been in a leftward direction, which should be reassuring to progressives.

8) Some people say that Clinton is a corrupt politician who, based on this point, doesn't merit anyone's trust...but the only evidence the proponents of this narrative have ever had on offer over the decades are unsubstantiated conspiracy theories that consistently get discredited. Imaginary scandals surrounding the person of Hillary Clinton have been regularly fabricated by less-than-credible Republican sources over the years and they have all, for a time, been given legitimacy by a ratings-driven media system in constant search of the salacious (particularly where women are concerned, quite frankly), but in time they always get discredited, be it the Clinton Foundation buyoff myths, the email non-scandal, etc. There is simply no evidence that Clinton is a corrupt politician. Or at least not that she's more corrupt than the average American politician. To this end, I can't help but feel that there is a subtle undercurrent of sexism to the whole "Clinton is corrupt" line of argument in that (and poll data shows this, incidentally) people (especially men) tend to feel that women are liars and deceivers and just generally less trustworthy than men are, and I can't help but feel that these attitudes impact many people's perceptions of how trustworthy any female candidate running for president is in a way that subjects female candidates to disproportionate and frequently unfair scrutiny in that connection. So if you can, please try to erase any of that starting prejudice that you may have from your mind when considering whether Clinton is or isn't a candidate worthy of being taken at her word.

9) Is Clinton an economic populist ideologically? No. Clinton embraces an inclusive, holistic, communitarian overarching worldview, not unlike the current president. This means that no, she's not going to "fight the power," or at least not in aggregate, but rather in general try to find ways of realizing social and economic progress that are at peace with the establishment. That may not be as bold and serious as what someone like Sanders, as an economic populist, can offer, but that doesn't mean her proposals are illegitimate ones, but just that they can't be radical or particularly combative in nature vis-a-vis key industries. For example, consider her proposal to offer businesses tax incentives to share their profits with their workers. That's a typical example of how she wants to shrink the wealth gap. It's a corporate-friendly approach in that profit-sharing isn't simply mandated, but incentivized, and nevertheless you can see how it could have a very real impact on the distribution of wealth in this country. Embracing these types of non-combative approaches to wealth redistribution is what enables her to run a competitively-funded campaign as a political leftist in the post-Citizens-United era, whether that's for good or ill.

10) Did I mention that she's not Trump?

None of this is to say that I'll necessarily vote for her even in the general election. The fact that the Republican Party appears poised to nominate Trump as their candidate is actually kind of reassures me that, here in my state at least, where the Democratic nominee (which is all but certain to be Clinton, let's face it) will unquestionably get the overall balance of the vote anyway, it might just be safe to cast a protest ballot for someone like Jill Stein of the Green Party, which would probably register on the political radar in a small state like mine wherein the Green Party is a small but nonetheless relevant factor. The closer the Republicans get to nominating Trump, the more reassured I feel that this option is safe. For me. However, I won't recommend that others follow suit cast a protest ballot as well because many states will be hotly contested and the last thing any serious progressive should want is for their vote to effectively help a Republican (especially if it's Trump!) carry their state and, with it, the corresponding electoral votes. However, I can't help but feel that, especially should Trump become the Republican nominee for president (and he almost certainly will), the political situation will be much different in states like say California or mine than it might be in states like say Ohio or Wisconsin.


Green Arrow wrote:
History shows us politicians that made their campaigns issue-based right up until the 60s. The 60s is when it started to change, and by the last several cycles issue-based campaigning was basically dead. Now it's basically, "Hey, at least I'm not as bad as THOSE guys!"

This history teacher begs to differ. I find that any time somebody opens their case with a generic, unsubstantiated expression like "history shows us...", it's a good idea to question the truthfulness of what may follow.

If you think personal attacks are more or less exclusive to the modern era of American politics, you ought to see what the various newspapers from the 1790s (which all had definite had political alignments) had to say about the candidates they opposed. Name-calling and arbitrary accusations were absolutely ubiquitous. Or you could look at say the election of 1828, which, for sitting President John Quincy Adams, mainly revolved around attacking rival Andrew Jackson's marriage. Neither was "Tippecanoe and Tyler too!" much of a substantive platform to run on. Or we could fast-forward and turn to the Gilded Age wherein leading politicians disagreed on so little that their campaigns were almost entirely personal, often involving the mobilization of gang-like political machines (the Jacksonian "democratic alternative" to the previous, property-based voting system).

I understand that conservative-minded people (and it does not escape me that, socially anyway, you are among those) have want of seeing the past through rose-colored lenses, but the truth of the matter is that, for the most part, things were worse in the past than they are now. People were poorer. Democracy was more exclusionary. Wars cost us more lives. Campaigns were more corrupt. Etc.

Now it can be argued that the general tone of campaigning became perhaps somewhat more sophisticated and less muckraking arbitrary with the advent of television and the centralization of newspaper reporting in the hands of a few giant corporations in and around the post-WW2 period through the turn of the century, as this situation created a more centralized and less partisan approach to reporting and broader media circulation. You can further argue that factors like the cancellation of the truth-in-reporting mandate in the 1980s at the hands of Reagan (resulting in the creation of obviously partisan corporate news networks like Fox News and MSNBC), the advent of the Internet and social media and the corresponding re-flourishing of individual and independent reporting, as well as the ramifications of Citizens United upon the nature and delivery of campaign ads, have collectively resulted in a revisitation of some poisonous crap last prominent in the pre-Cold-War era vis-a-vis our elections, but it's pretty disingenuous to argue that this is the worst it's ever been or that negative campaigning is at all a new thing.

[Green Arrow]

This history teacher begs to differ. I find that any time somebody opens their case with a generic, unsubstantiated expression like "history shows us...", it's a good idea to question the truthfulness of what may follow.

If you think personal attacks are more or less exclusive to the modern era of American politics

I don't think that, I just realize that issues-based campaigning was more prevalent in the past than it has been since Reagan and the 80s, the start of the new Era of Partisanship. Personal attacks still existed, they just weren't the whole focus of the campaign like today. And Trump is set to make the problem even worse.

Also, I teach history too, and have been a student of history my whole life.

[Chris]

Ah, I understand. Liberal capitalism, however, simply could not have survived without those reforms. Europe experienced the same struggles. Had the resistance to reform been m ore successful than, yeah, I'd say America could very well have been transformed at a fundamental level.

Incidentally, the burdens and human degradation that made those reforms necessary are precisely why we don't have a truly "free market". Western populations quickly decided that placing their lives at the mercy of the market was unacceptable.

Largely because they seek the security of the state, not because of anything inherent in the free market, but to reform the wrongs of crony capitalism, just as liberals wanted to reform fuedalism.

[Cigar]

Forum Democrats, why do you support Hillary Clinton?

Please answer intelligently with thought to her positions and record (not just rhetoric).


Because the Republican Party makes Huge assumptions about me personally, yet never met me. I'm nothing like they publicly project me to be, thus they don't know me. So why would I Vote for them, they don't even think I matter, so when I enter the voting booth, neither do they.

Proof will follow.

[Cletus]

Because the Republican Party makes Huge assumptions about me personally, yet never met me. I'm nothing like they publicly project me to be, thus they don't know me. So why would I Vote for them, they don't even think I matter, so when I enter the voting booth, neither do they.

Proof will follow.

I doubt the Republican Party even knows you exist.

[Cigar]

I doubt the Republican Party even knows you exist.

They did following the two Wednesday's after both Obama's Elections. :grin:

... And they will Wednesday November 9th 2016

[maineman]

They did following the two Wednesday's after both Obama's Elections. :grin:

... And they will Wednesday November 9th 2016

precisely. Republicans treat all non-republicans like they were the hired help. On some level, they know we exist, they just hope we don't vote, and try to limit our opportunity to do so.

[Cletus]

They did following the two Wednesday's after both Obama's Elections. :grin:

... And they will Wednesday November 9th 2016

No. they won't.

You will simply be one more mindless, nameless drone whose existence is of no consequence.

[Cletus]

precisely. Republicans treat all non-republicans like they were the hired help. On some level, they know we exist, they just hope we don't vote, and try to limit our opportunity to do so.

Nonsense. Nobody is trying to limit your opportunity to vote.

Why do you people lie about that so frequently?

[Cletus]

Alright, well then, though I am not among those this thread inquires of (I'm neither a Democrat nor an endorser of Clinton), seeing as there's been so little willingness to offer a serious defense of Hillary Clinton here so far, I guess I might as well make the case, such as it is. Why not?

<Blather removed>



Never say in 5 words what you can say in 500, eh?

[Cigar]

Nonsense. Nobody is trying to limit your opportunity to vote.

Why do you people lie about that so frequently?


... And with that ladies, gentlemen and "you people", I rest my case.

Let's talk again after another Post Election Autopsy. :laugh:


TBed by OP.

[zelmo1234]

precisely. Republicans treat all non-republicans like they were the hired help. On some level, they know we exist, they just hope we don't vote, and try to limit our opportunity to do so.

At least that are willing to pay for it. The Democrats are more into owning people.

[Cigar]

At least that are willing to pay for it. The Democrats are more into owning people.

So, tell me, who's my Owner?

[maineman]

Nonsense. Nobody is trying to limit your opportunity to vote.

Why do you people lie about that so frequently?

limiting polling places. limiting hours of voting. eliminating early voting. lies? I think not.

[zelmo1234]

... And with that ladies, gentlemen and "you people", I rest my case.

Let's talk again after another Post Election Autopsy. :laugh:

So what policies do you think Hillary will do to help you the most? The thread is about why you would vote for her not false claims of racism.

[Cletus]

... And with that ladies, gentlemen and "you people", I rest my case.

Let's talk again after another Post Election Autopsy. :laugh:

If that means you are going to stop spreading that particular pile of bullshit, good.

Do you object to the use of "you people" to label the collective effort of certain Leftist liars to claim their voting rights are being eroded? If you do, good.

[Green Arrow]

precisely. Republicans treat all non-republicans like they were the hired help. On some level, they know we exist, they just hope we don't vote, and try to limit our opportunity to do so.

Literally everything you just said applies equally to Democrats.

[Cletus]

I think not.

That is obvious.


limiting polling places. limiting hours of voting. eliminating early voting.

Ah, so those things only affect Democrats, right? Why is that?

[Matty]

50 years ago is recent when you consider American history is 250 years old.


Gosh, just the other day you couldn't go back to Clarence Thomas.

[maineman]

Literally everything you just said applies equally to Democrats.

how do democrats attempt to limit the opportunity that republicans have to vote?

[zelmo1234]

how do democrats attempt to limit the opportunity that republicans have to vote?

I am not aware that they do? I am also not aware of Republicans trying to limit Democrats from voting? are you?

[maineman]

That is obvious.

and you want me to play nice with you? Heal thyself.




Ah, so those things only affect Democrats, right? Why is that?

if you agree that, demographically, republicans are wealthier, and that democrats are, demographically, more blue collar, you should know that a salaried worker can slip away from work in order to vote. Hourly workers need to clock out to do so. Early voting and extended hours of voting are more of an aid to hourly workers than they are to salaried workers.

[Green Arrow]

how do democrats attempt to limit the opportunity that republicans have to vote?

Okay, maybe not everything​, but everything except that.

[Matty]

and you want me to play nice with you? Heal thyself.





if you agree that, demographically, republicans are wealthier, and that democrats are, demographically, more blue collar, you should know that a salaried worker can slip away from work in order to vote. Hourly workers need to clock out to do so. Early voting and extended hours of voting are more of an aid to hourly workers than they are to salaried workers.



Absentee ballots are available

[zelmo1234]

and you want me to play nice with you? Heal thyself.

if you agree that, demographically, republicans are wealthier, and that democrats are, demographically, more blue collar, you should know that a salaried worker can slip away from work in order to vote. Hourly workers need to clock out to do so. Early voting and extended hours of voting are more of an aid to hourly workers than they are to salaried workers.

Do you know that my salaried workers put in an average of 60 hours a week. my hourly about 42 on average. the polls in MI are open from 7 AM to 8 PM?

So is this really an issue?

[maineman]

Do you know that my salaried workers put in an average of 60 hours a week. my hourly about 42 on average. the polls in MI are open from 7 AM to 8 PM?

So is this really an issue?

How many hours they "average" does not change the fact that salaried workers can take time off to vote and their pay is not docked.

and every state and city has just the same polling hours as MI. I had forgotten that.

and every city and state has plenty of polling places that are convenient for hourly workers and single parents. I had forgotten that as well.

and if the goal were to get as much voter participation as possible, why would anyone make moves to limit early voting?

[maineman]

http://prospect.org/article/22-states-wave-new-voting-restrictions-threatens-shift-outcomes-tight-races

[Matty]

How many hours they "average" does not change the fact that salaried workers can take time off to vote and their pay is not docked.

and every state and city has just the same polling hours as MI. I had forgotten that.

and every city and state has plenty of polling places that are convenient for hourly workers and single parents. I had forgotten that as well.

and if the goal were to get as much voter participation as possible, why would anyone make moves to limit early voting?


We used to have one day to vote, a Tuesday. It has been expanded, not limited as you claim.

[maineman]

We used to have one day to vote, a Tuesday. It has been expanded, not limited as you claim.

read the article. It is being limited from its earlier expansion.... by republican state legislatures.

[Matty]

read the article. It is being limited from it's earlier expansion.... by republican state legislatures.


What do you want? Voting 24/7 for 365 days straight, will you be able to make it to the polls then? Or will you drum up another vexation against the Republicans cause you cannot vote?

[maineman]

What do you want? Voting 24/7 for 365 days straight, will you be able to make it to the polls then? Or will you drum up another vexation against the Republicans cause you cannot vote?

silly. States have curtailed early voting. What would be the reason for doing so?

[Matty]

silly. States have curtailed early voting. What would be the reason for doing so?


No, as pointed out, it has been expanded from the one day. I guess either you do not know or do not care about the costs to the states. And, in addition, there is the availability of absentee ballots. So, what do you need? 24/7. 365 to be satisfied?

[Matty]

What I think is that Democrats just need a reason to bitch.

[maineman]

you failed to answer a simple question. What would be the benefit to society to limit people's access to the ballot box?

care to answer it? If not, fly fly .

[Matty]

you failed to answer a simple question. What would be the benefit to society to limit people's access to the ballot box?

care to answer it? If not, fly fly .


I fail l to see how access is limited. Oh,, wait,,, you want illegals to vote?

[Matty]

limiting polling places. limiting hours of voting. eliminating early voting. lies? I think not.


How many polling places do you need? One in every cemetery? Hours? 24/7 early voting? How early? 365 days?

[maineman]

How many polling places do you need? One in every cemetery? Hours? 24/7 early voting? How early? 365 days?

when you get off your overdose of hyperbole, perhaps a rational discussion might ensue. Not until.

[maineman]

I fail l to see how access is limited. Oh,, wait,,, you want illegals to vote?

if you reduce the hours and days previously allotted for early voting, you limit access from it's previous amount. That can't really be all that hard for you to grasp.

and no one said anything about illegals voting.... except you, of course.

[Matty]

if you reduce the hours and days previously allotted for early voting, you limit access from it's previous amount. That can't really be all that hard for you to grasp.

and no one said anything about illegals voting.... except you, of course.


So you do want voter ID. That's good.

[maineman]

So you do want voter ID. That's good.

quit changing the subject.

[maineman]

but I will say that if every registered voter is given the authorized voters ID card free of charge, I have absolutely no problem with requiring those IDs to be shown at the polling place. If they have to pay ANYTHING for those ID cards, I am against it. Nobody has shown any credible data that would show that voter fraud is anything but an infrequent and isolated problem.

[Matty]

but I will say that if every registered voter is given the authorized voters ID card free of charge, I have absolutely no problem with requiring those IDs to be shown at the polling place. If they have to pay ANYTHING for those ID cards, I am against it. Nobody has shown any credible data that would show that voter fraud is anything but an infrequent and isolated problem.


Well, we all have to pay for our drivers license why should you be the exception?

[maineman]

Well, we all have to pay for our drivers license why should you be the exception?

you get to drive with your driver's license.... the voting part is free. If a voter does not need a driver's license, he ought not to have to pay just to exercise his right to vote.

My father lived a very long time. He dies in 2007 at the age of 95. He was a prominent lawyer and former elected politician in my home town. He hadn't had a driver's license in fifteen years, and his passport had long since expired. He had no photo ID that would prove who he was. He was a registered voter, however and had voted in every election at the same grade school a few blocks from his house since he first moved there in the mid-1930's. He never had to prove who he was, and no one, in all those years, attempted to vote in his stead. If someone had told him that he needed to BUY the right to continue exercising his right to vote, he would have sued the city and claimed the ID cost was a de facto poll tax.... which it would be.

[maineman]

but again.... why would any government jurisdiction seek to reduce the amount of time and places that voters could perform their most important civic duty?

[Matty]

but again.... why would any government jurisdiction seek to reduce the amount of time and places that voters could perform their most important civic duty?


They haven't. They just haven't expanded them to your satisfaction. So again, tell us what would satisfy you?

[Chris]

Agree that we don't need to return to unconstitutional poll taxes.

I would think just a driver's license or state ID card would suffice. At least where you don't register party affiliation.

[maineman]

They haven't. They just haven't expanded them to your satisfaction. So again, tell us what would satisfy you?

if you read my article, you know that many states have reduced the times/days available for early voting. Clearly, you haven't.

[Matty]

if you read my article, you know that many states have reduced the times/days available for early voting. Clearly, you haven't.


Have they cut off your access to an absentee ballott?

[maineman]

Agree that we don't need to return to unconstitutional poll taxes.

I would think just a driver's license or state ID card would suffice. At least where you don't register party affiliation.

if the ID card didn't cost the registered voter anything, I would be, as I have said, fully supportive of such a requirement.

My father is a perfect example of a registered voter who no longer had any identification with his photo on it. Give him a voter's ID and that would have been fine with him. Ask him to pay money in order to exercise his right to vote and he would have sued, no doubt.

[maineman]

Have they cut off your access to an absentee ballott?

that's not the issue. Why can't you just admit that republican legislatures around the country are passing measures that limit people's access to the ballot box?

[Matty]

if the ID card didn't cost the registered voter anything, I would be, as I have said, fully supportive of such a requirement.

My father is a perfect example of a registered voter who no longer had any identification with his photo on it. Give him a voter's ID and that would have been fine with him. Ask him to pay money in order to exercise his right to vote and he would have sued, no doubt.



If I am not mistaken the state's have agreed to issue valid ID free of cost. The democrats, of course rejected that . Why? They want illegals to vote and more than once.

[Matty]

that's not the issue. Why can't you just admit that republican legislatures around the country are passing measures that limit people's access to the ballot box?


Because I do not agree with you obviously. I have never had an issue with voting. And, I know my state sends absentee ballots to my home without my having requested them. Not only that I get a sample ballot to study.

[Matty]

maineman. Pick a state, any state and show me what they have specifically done to block democrats from voting. Let's start there.

[maineman]

@maineman (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1289). Pick a state, any state and show me what they have specifically done to block democrats from voting. Let's start there.

Let's first have you read the article I posted in #59.

[Cletus]

if you agree that, demographically, republicans are wealthier, and that democrats are, demographically, more blue collar, you should know that a salaried worker can slip away from work in order to vote. Hourly workers need to clock out to do so. Early voting and extended hours of voting are more of an aid to hourly workers than they are to salaried workers.

That is stretching reasoning to the breaking point.

We can look at countries like Iraq, where people sometimes walked for days to get to a polling center to cast a vote and you are complaining because someone has to take an hour off work?

Really?

[Cletus]

silly. States have curtailed early voting. What would be the reason for doing so?

Probably expense. I somehow doubt they have gotten together and said "Let's find a way to keep Democrats from voting and we should do it in a way that impacts Republicans as much as it does anyone else."

[maineman]

That is stretching reasoning to the breaking point.

We can look at countries like Iraq, where people sometimes walked for days to get to a polling center to cast a vote and you are complaining because someone has to take an hour off work?

Really?

complaining? not really. merely pointing out an obvious disparity that makes the restriction on early voting clearly a move that favors republicans over democrats.

[maineman]

Probably expense. I somehow doubt they have gotten together and said "Let's find a way to keep Democrats from voting and we should do it in a way that impacts Republicans as much as it does anyone else."

you doubt that republicans would not want to find a way to legally limit democratic voter turnout?

really??

and clearly, limiting early voting DOES NOT impact republicans as much as it does anyone else.

[zelmo1234]

http://prospect.org/article/22-states-wave-new-voting-restrictions-threatens-shift-outcomes-tight-races

OH! thank goodness, it is just Voter ID I thought we were preventing US citizens from voting! I feel better now

You will forgive me if I don't morn the Illegals not being able to vote.

[zelmo1234]

silly. States have curtailed early voting. What would be the reason for doing so?

People were using it to vote more than once.

[maineman]

People were using it to vote more than once.

link?

[zelmo1234]

if you reduce the hours and days previously allotted for early voting, you limit access from it's previous amount. That can't really be all that hard for you to grasp.

and no one said anything about illegals voting.... except you, of course.

Nobody is restricted they have absentee ballots they can get them one month in advance, some states have early voting others do not. But if someone wants to vote, they have multiple ways to vote.

Now it is much harder for Democrats to vote early and often. But that is a good thing,

[Cletus]

that's not the issue. Why can't you just admit that republican legislatures around the country are passing measures that limit people's access to the ballot box?

Why admit something that is not true?

[maineman]

OH! thank goodness, it is just Voter ID I thought we were preventing US citizens from voting! I feel better now

You will forgive me if I don't morn the Illegals not being able to vote.


not at all. What does curtailing early voting have to do with preventing illegals from voting?

[maineman]

Why admit something that is not true?

read the article I posted in #59.

[zelmo1234]

link?

We have been through this many times before as well, this is just one of the cases that I remember

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/11/cincinnati-poll-worker-charged-with-voting-half-dozen-times-in-november.html

[maineman]

Nobody is restricted they have absentee ballots they can get them one month in advance, some states have early voting others do not. But if someone wants to vote, they have multiple ways to vote.

Now it is much harder for Democrats to vote early and often. But that is a good thing,

If you restrict early voting from previously allowed time periods, you are clearly restricting people's ability to vote.

[zelmo1234]

not at all. What does curtailing early voting have to do with preventing illegals from voting?

See the other article that I posted the Democrats were doing what they always do, that is just one of the cases where 3 people were prosecuted.

[maineman]

We have been through this many times before as well, this is just one of the cases that I remember

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/11/cincinnati-poll-worker-charged-with-voting-half-dozen-times-in-november.html

three people?

do we really need to have state legislatures around the country restrict early voting because of that?

you can't be serious.

[maineman]

See the other article that I posted the Democrats were doing what they always do, that is just one of the cases where 3 people were prosecuted.

were any of the three non-citizen, unregistered illegal aliens who successfully voted?

[zelmo1234]

If you restrict early voting from previously allowed time periods, you are clearly restricting people's ability to vote.

You can pick up an absentee ballot or have one sent to you from the very first day that they are printed and they need to be received by the end of election day? How can someone have anymore time to vote than this?

Now it does give the DNC a lot less time to buss people around and have them vote in different areas , pay for voting and many other dishonest tactics that you are mourning.

[maineman]

You can pick up an absentee ballot or have one sent to you from the very first day that they are printed and they need to be received by the end of election day? How can someone have anymore time to vote than this?

Now it does give the DNC a lot less time to buss people around and have them vote in different areas , pay for voting and many other dishonest tactics that you are mourning.

unproven anecdotal bs.... the fact remains, if we roll back the previous time periods for early voting, we are, clearly, restricting voting options.... something the GOP has always wanted to do.

[zelmo1234]

were any of the three non-citizen, unregistered illegal aliens who successfully voted?

This is why the left dose so well with No successful programs. They are the most dedicated and loyal people to the Agenda.

We have been through all of this time and time again but here it is again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILJDudUpct0

[zelmo1234]

unproven anecdotal bs.... the fact remains, if we roll back the previous time periods for early voting, we are, clearly, restricting voting options.... something the GOP has always wanted to do.

The Fact is, that if the Democrats were not dishonest, we would not have to take these actions.

[maineman]

The Fact is, that if the Democrats were not dishonest, we would not have to take these actions.

opinion.... not fact.

[Matty]

opinion.... not fact.



Well, looks like you have been de bunked.

[maineman]

This is why the left dose so well with No successful programs. They are the most dedicated and loyal people to the Agenda.

We have been through all of this time and time again but here it is again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILJDudUpct0

94 people in all of Florida. wow.

:rofl:

[maineman]

Well, looks like you have been de bunked.

opinion. not fact.

[zelmo1234]

opinion.... not fact.

Not opinion see the last 2 links were people were prosecuted and convicted???? That is what we call evidence in the real world.

[maineman]

Not opinion see the last 2 links were people were prosecuted and convicted???? That is what we call evidence in the real world.
but not evidence of voters fraud to any degree that would require limiting early voting, especially since early voting was not the proximate cause of your two cases. We live in a country of 320 million people. Voter fraud is a red herring.

[zelmo1234]

but not evidence of voters fraud to any degree that would require limiting early voting, especially since early voting was not the proximate cause of your two cases. We live in a country of 320 million people. Voter fraud is a red herring.

NO! if we have the same amount of fraud in other countries that we have in the USA with the Democrats, then we would not acknowledge is as a free and fair election and the reason that the Dems have time to do this is because of early voting.

Now I understand that Dems like cheating and lying but it is never a good thing,

[IMPress Polly]

Cletus wrote:
Nonsense. Nobody is trying to limit your opportunity to vote.

Why do you people lie about that so frequently?

It's not a lie. It's the only logical explanation for the new wave of voting laws that Republican-controlled states have implemented in recent years, particularly since the gutting of the Voting Rights Act in 2013. The claim is that these laws are designed to stop voter fraud; a problem that, statistically speaking, does not exist in this country. So either Republican politicians are trying to solve a non-existent problem with these laws or they're using them to retain their seats. Which of these sounds more plausible to you?

[zelmo1234]

It's not a lie. It's the only logical explanation for the new wave of voting laws that Republican-controlled states have implemented in recent years, particularly since the gutting of the Voting Rights Act in 2013. The claim is that these laws are designed to stop voter fraud; a problem that, statistically speaking, does not exist in this country. So either Republican politicians are trying to solve a non-existent problem with these laws or they're using them to retain their seats. Which of these sounds more plausible to you?

If the Republicans retain their seats because the Democrats can't Cheat, that is a good thing.

please tell me how any of the laws prevent anyone from voting?

[Crepitus]

No. they won't.

You will simply be one more mindless, nameless drone whose existence is of no consequence.

This statement, in my opinion, exemplifies the biggest problem with the republican party. To them we, the average everyday people whole work for our daily bread, who supply the labor they use to get richer and richer, who are the very heart of this great land, are nothing more than "mindless drones" to be used and then disposed of when our usefulness is at an end.

[maineman]

NO! if we have the same amount of fraud in other countries that we have in the USA with the Democrats, then we would not acknowledge is as a free and fair election and the reason that the Dems have time to do this is because of early voting.


bullshit. voter fraud cases in triple digits in a country of 320 Million?

and you have NO evidence that early voting encourages voter fraud to any degree beyond the significance of a mouse fart.

[maineman]

If the Republicans retain their seats because the Democrats can't Cheat, that is a good thing.

please tell me how any of the laws prevent anyone from voting?

by restricting early voting from previous levels, that will, using basic arithmetic restrict options for people to exercise their right to vote.

this really isn't rocket science.

[Peter1469]

This statement, in my opinion, exemplifies the biggest problem with the republican party. To them we, the average everyday people whole work for our daily bread, who supply the labor they use to get richer and richer, who are the very heart of this great land, are nothing more than "mindless drones" to be used and then disposed of when our usefulness is at an end.

Without capital, there wouldn't be many jobs for the common folk to do. You could open a "mom & pop" and take your chances.

[Captain Obvious]

This statement, in my opinion, exemplifies the biggest problem with the republican party. To them we, the average everyday people whole work for our daily bread, who supply the labor they use to get richer and richer, who are the very heart of this great land, are nothing more than "mindless drones" to be used and then disposed of when our usefulness is at an end.

http://www.crimethinc.com/books/work/iww.jpg

[Captain Obvious]

Without capital, there wouldn't be many jobs for the common folk to do. You could open a "mom & pop" and take your chances.

Capital is capital regardless of who controls it, from socialistic governments to communists to the wealthy class to the middle class.

I'll go out on a limb and suggest you're not a billionaire, and you have a retirement fund, and it's probably fairly sizable. What do you think that retirement fund is doing right now?

[Matty]

This statement, in my opinion, exemplifies the biggest problem with the republican party. To them we, the average everyday people whole work for our daily bread, who supply the labor they use to get richer and richer, who are the very heart of this great land, are nothing more than "mindless drones" to be used and then disposed of when our usefulness is at an end.


So you don't think Republicans work?

[Peter1469]

Capital is capital regardless of who controls it, from socialistic governments to communists to the wealthy class to the middle class.

I'll go out on a limb and suggest you're not a billionaire, and you have a retirement fund, and it's probably fairly sizable. What do you think that retirement fund is doing right now?

Serving as capital for some rich guy or corporation.

[Captain Obvious]

Serving as capital for some rich guy or corporation.

Indirectly maybe.

It's still your capital, you own it, it's creating jobs. The fact that there is a middle man peeling off a part of it is almost a non-issue in the sense I'm suggesting.

[Dr. Who]

Do you know that my salaried workers put in an average of 60 hours a week. my hourly about 42 on average. the polls in MI are open from 7 AM to 8 PM?

So is this really an issue?
Could be for shift workers, especially the graveyard shift.

[Crepitus]

Without capital, there wouldn't be many jobs for the common folk to do. You could open a "mom & pop" and take your chances.
It's the attitude I'm referring to.

[Crepitus]

So you don't think Republicans work?
Well, if they are following their congressmen's example no, they don't.

[zelmo1234]

Could be for shift workers, especially the graveyard shift.

How they are off work nearly the entire time that the polls are open and they still can vote absentee?

[Dr. Who]

How they are off work nearly the entire time that the polls are open and they still can vote absentee?
They do have to sleep.

[maineman]

How they are off work nearly the entire time that the polls are open and they still can vote absentee?

again... can you explain how cutting back on the days/hours of early voting is a good thing for participatory democracy?

[zelmo1234]

They do have to sleep.

Not 16 hours? What do all people that work 3rds sleep the entire time they are not at work.

I wish that one of you would be honest and at least admit that the extended voting helps the left pull off voter fraud.

Up until just a few years ago there was one day to vote and as far as I know, there has not been a dramatic increase in voting numbers.

[zelmo1234]

again... can you explain how cutting back on the days/hours of early voting is a good thing for participatory democracy?

Yes it prevents the opportunity for voter fraud. That is a GREAT thing, And can you tell me how you can possible expand the hours, when absentee is unlimited?

[maineman]

Yes it prevents the opportunity for voter fraud. That is a GREAT thing, And can you tell me how you can possible expand the hours, when absentee is unlimited?

you have yet to show how early voting, in and of itself, causes - or has caused - voter fraud in any appreciable numbers. If you restrict the hours and days from what they once were, that is a restriction. Simple arithmetic shows us that. The fact of the matter is, the GOP doesn't really WANT the rabble to vote and will do whatever they can to put roadblocks up to their doing so. Limit the number of polling places so that working stiffs have to come home, one spouse has to stay home with the kids while the other one votes... and then go back and change places but there are long lines at the limited polling places so many folks give up..... limit early voting.... it's all part of the GOP game plan to make it harder for American citizens who are NOT their core constituency to vote for the GOP opponents. Hey.... if you win control of the state legislature, why not use that control to yo0ur advantage. I understand their play completely, I just don't think it is a good one for participatory democracy.

And only 27 states allow absentee balloting without a viable excuse for not going to the polls on election day....and, the fact that you're a working stiff with kids to feed isn't a viable excuse.

[Dr. Who]

Not 16 hours? What do all people that work 3rds sleep the entire time they are not at work.

I wish that one of you would be honest and at least admit that the extended voting helps the left pull off voter fraud.

Up until just a few years ago there was one day to vote and as far as I know, there has not been a dramatic increase in voting numbers.
Do you fall asleep the moment you get home from work. No. People working the graveyard shift may be just going to sleep when the polls open, particularly if they open later. Furthermore some people work 12 hour shifts.

[Cletus]

unproven anecdotal bs.... the fact remains, if we roll back the previous time periods for early voting, we are, clearly, restricting voting options.... something the GOP has always wanted to do.

There is nothing preventing anyone in this country who is legally eligible vote from doing so. If exercising your rights and fulfilling your obligations as a citizen cuts into your beer time and that matters more to you than casting your vote, don't vote.

The choice is yours.

[PolWatch]

The implementation of required voter ID has nothing to do with trying to keep poor minorities from voting. That's probably why Alabama closed drivers license offices in 31 counties...leaving no DL office in 29 counties. Those 29 counties were predominately poor, black, dem-leaning....just a coincidence according to the repub governor & state legislature.

[Cletus]

94 people in all of Florida. wow.

:rofl:

Those are just the ones who got caught.

It only takes one vote to change the results of an election. You seem to be okay with that.

Why?

[Cletus]

This statement, in my opinion, exemplifies the biggest problem with the republican party. To them we, the average everyday people whole work for our daily bread, who supply the labor they use to get richer and richer, who are the very heart of this great land, are nothing more than "mindless drones" to be used and then disposed of when our usefulness is at an end.

Anyone who votes for a candidate based on nothing more than party affiliation is a disgrace and doesn't deserve the rights and privileges that come with being an American.

[Crepitus]

Anyone who votes for a candidate based on nothing more than party affiliation is a disgrace and doesn't deserve the rights and privileges that come with being an American.

So why are there still Republicans then?

[Cletus]

So why are there still Republicans then?

I am guessing you thought that was somehow clever.

It wasn't.

[Peter1469]

It's the attitude I'm referring to.


It is not an attitude, it is a fact of life.

[Crepitus]

I am guessing you thought that was somehow clever.

It wasn't.
Yea it was, you just don't like the sting you get when I'm right.

[Matty]

Not 16 hours? What do all people that work 3rds sleep the entire time they are not at work.

I wish that one of you would be honest and at least admit that the extended voting helps the left pull off voter fraud.

Up until just a few years ago there was one day to vote and as far as I know, there has not been a dramatic increase in voting numbers.


Because sleeping in the daytime is not natural. You wake feeling tired, you remain tired until you have a couple of days of normal night sleep and get back into your circadian rhythm. Humans are not nocturnal creatures.

[maineman]

Not 16 hours? What do all people that work 3rds sleep the entire time they are not at work.

I wish that one of you would be honest and at least admit that the extended voting helps the left pull off voter fraud.

Up until just a few years ago there was one day to vote and as far as I know, there has not been a dramatic increase in voting numbers.

I wish you would show me any data that shows that extended voting has increased voter fraud.

early voting does increase voting numbers and it does relief extreme congestion at polling places that used to be the norm at many urban ones toward the end of election day. If a single mother can only get away from her kids for an hour or so to go vote and, when she arrives at the polling place, there is a line around the block, she's gonna begrudgingly head home and not vote. I realize that that is exactly the result that the GOP is hoping for, but it is not a good result for participatory democracy.

[Matty]

I wish you would show me any data that shows that extended voting has increased voter fraud.

early voting does increase voting numbers and it does relief extreme congestion at polling places that used to be the norm at many urban ones toward the end of election day. If a single mother can only get away from her kids for an hour or so to go vote and, when she arrives at the polling place, there is a line around the block, she's gonna begrudgingly head home and not vote. I realize that that is exactly the result that the GOP is hoping for, but it is not a good result for participatory democracy.


I think several days at 12 to 14 hours a day plus absentee ballots is plenty of time. How much time do you want?

[maineman]

Anyone who votes for a candidate based on nothing more than party affiliation is a disgrace and doesn't deserve the rights and privileges that come with being an American.

and I think that exactly the opposite is true. IDEAS matter. Personalities don't. The two parties have vastly different philosophies. Just because some candidate is more affable, or more charismatic, or better looking doesn't change the platform that they stand upon. The first time the women got the vote in the United States, they all voted for Harding who was matinee idol handsome and James Cox, the democrat, was frumpy looking yet Harding was a horribly inept and corrupt republican regardless of his appearance. I really don't care whether the President seems like a guy I could have a beer with or tell a few jokes with, I care what his vision for America is, and the primary means of determining the vision of a candidate is to examine the platform he or she is running on. If Americans vote for a presidential candidate simply because they think he or she is likable or pleasant looking, THEY don't deserve the rights and privileges that come with being an American.

[maineman]

I think several days at 12 to 14 hours a day plus absentee ballots is plenty of time. How much time do you want?

And I would agree.... and when the number of days is arbitrarily REDUCED from some previous level, that, at an earlier date was determined to be "plenty of time", then that new reduced amount of time is a restriction. Is that really so hard to understand?

[Matty]

And I would agree.... and when the number of days is arbitrarily REDUCED from some previous level, that, at an earlier date was determined to be "plenty of time", then that new reduced amount of time is a restriction. Is that really so hard to understand?


What was the previous level and what was the reduction?

[Green Arrow]

So back to the question of "Why Hillary Clinton?"...

[Matty]

Vagina!

[Green Arrow]

Vagina!

I laughed.

[maineman]

What was the previous level and what was the reduction?

what does it matter? If it was at X number of hours and Y number of days, and it has been reduced by any amount of days and any amount of hours, that its a restriction. And in any case, different states have reduced it to different levels. It is clear to me that you have not read the article I posted. When you do, we can continue this conversation.

[Matty]

what does it matter? If it was at X number of hours and Y number of days, and it has been reduced by any amount of days and any amount of hours, that its a restriction. And in any case, different states have reduced it to different levels. It is clear to me that you have not read the article I posted. When you do, we can continue this conversation.


Ok. But then I do hope you make it to the polls. :)

[maineman]

So back to the question of "Why Hillary Clinton?"...

I live in Mexico. I send money to DNC PACS.... my sons have gotten me to send Bernie some money.... my daughter has gotten me to send Hillary some money. I will support the democratic party nominee for the reasons I delineate in #146. It looks like that will probably be Hillary. If she's the nominee, she'll get my vote. Pure and simple.

[Matty]

Oh, but sire! Does this not mean you vote absentee? Or dost thou make the trek to your home polling place?

[maineman]

in case you missed it, I'll repeat it once more: It is clear to me that you have not read the article I posted. When you do, we can continue this conversation.

[Cletus]

and I think that exactly the opposite is true. IDEAS matter. Personalities don't. The two parties have vastly different philosophies. Just because some candidate is more affable, or more charismatic, or better looking doesn't change the platform that they stand upon. The first time the women got the vote in the United States, they all voted for Harding who was matinee idol handsome and James Cox, the democrat, was frumpy looking yet Harding was a horribly inept and corrupt republican regardless of his appearance. I really don't care whether the President seems like a guy I could have a beer with or tell a few jokes with, I care what his vision for America is, and the primary means of determining the vision of a candidate is to examine the platform he or she is running on. If Americans vote for a presidential candidate simply because they think he or she is likable or pleasant looking, THEY don't deserve the rights and privileges that come with being an American.

I didn't say anything about personalities or looks. I said anyone who votes for a candidate just because he has a D or an R behind is name is a disgrace. That really is no different from voting for someone because you think he would be fun to hang out with.

[Cletus]

I live in Mexico. I send money to DNC PACS.... my sons have gotten me to send Bernie some money.... my daughter has gotten me to send Hillary some money. I will support the democratic party nominee for the reasons I delineate in #146. It looks like that will probably be Hillary. If she's the nominee, she'll get my vote. Pure and simple.

So, you are going to vote for whoever has the nod from the DNC. It doesn't matter who it is or what that person's record is, as long as he or she gets the DNC stamp of approval, that is good enough for you.

That is exactly what I was talking about.

[maineman]

I didn't say anything about personalities or looks. I said anyone who votes for a candidate just because he has a D or an R behind is name is a disgrace. That really is no different from voting for someone because you think he would be fun to hang out with.

like I said. Ideas matter. Congeniality does not. Ideas are expressed in party platforms. Every presidential election year, I personally read the entire platform for both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. I make my final decision on who to vote for based upon which platform more closely conforms to my own personal political philosophy. I have been doing that every four years since 1972.

It absolutely IS different than deciding based upon who would be more fun to hang out with. My decision is based upon my beliefs about the future direction of our nation. Yours are based upon likability and charisma, regardless of what platform the candidate stands upon. That is a disgrace.

[maineman]

So, you are going to vote for whoever has the nod from the DNC. It doesn't matter who it is or what that person's record is, as long as he or she gets the DNC stamp of approval, that is good enough for you.

That is exactly what I was talking about.

as long as the members of my party nominate the candidate, as long as he or she pledges to run on the party platform, and as long as the party platform still more closely conforms to my own personal political philosophy, then and only then will I vote for that candidate.

[Cletus]

like I said. Ideas matter. Congeniality does not. Ideas are expressed in party platforms. Every presidential election year, I personally read the entire platform for both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. I make my final decision on who to vote for based upon which platform more closely conforms to my own personal political philosophy. I have been doing that every four years since 1972.

It absolutely IS different than deciding based upon who would be more fun to hang out with. My decision is based upon my beliefs about the future direction of our nation. Yours are based upon likability and charisma, regardless of what platform the candidate stands upon. That is a disgrace.

You really talk out your ass way too much. You have no idea what criteria I use for choosing a candidate. I will say this... anyone who wishes to see Hillary Clinton or anyone else the Democrats are currently putting out there has a deep hatred of this country and wishes to see it destroyed.

That would be you.

[Green Arrow]

as long as the members of my party nominate the candidate, as long as he or she pledges to run on the party platform, and as long as the party platform still more closely conforms to my own personal political philosophy, then and only then will I vote for that candidate.

Even if they have a history of supporting positions that don't conform with the platform?

[maineman]

Even if they have a history of supporting positions that don't conform with the platform?

nobody supports every plank of a platform. I don't. I don't expect any candidate to do so either. My party does not nominate candidates who refuse to stand on the platform as a whole.

[maineman]

You really talk out your ass way too much. You have no idea what criteria I use for choosing a candidate. I will say this... anyone who wishes to see Hillary Clinton or anyone else the Democrats are currently putting out there has a deep hatred of this country and wishes to see it destroyed.

That would be you.

I know you do not use the same criteria I do. I know that party discipline is something you are unfamiliar with. I know that politics is a team sport and the only way to advance your platform is to elect people who will pledge to do so.

And your views on the democratic party's presidential candidates and the people who support those candidates shows what an unpatriotic fool you really are. No true patriot would ever demand that his fellow citizens agree with him on every issue or be branded as traitors.

[Green Arrow]

nobody supports every plank of a platform. I don't. I don't expect any candidate to do so either. My party does not nominate candidates who refuse to stand on the platform as a whole.

So, she's basically a Republican on foreign policy, she helped outsourcing companies open offices on U.S. soil (and the surrounding area's unemployment rate went up as a result), as SoS she tried to get Keystone Pipeline approved, she supports NSA surveillance and the PATRIOT Act, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. None of that affects your vote because, hey, she claims to follow a useless platform.

Do I have it about right?

[maineman]

So, she's basically a Republican on foreign policy, she helped outsourcing companies open offices on U.S. soil (and the surrounding area's unemployment rate went up as a result), as SoS she tried to get Keystone Pipeline approved, she supports NSA surveillance and the PATRIOT Act, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. None of that affects your vote because, hey, she claims to follow a useless platform.

Do I have it about right?

dizzy yet?

you don't have it right, but nothing I will say will convince you that you are not as brilliant as you know yourself to be, so let's let that ride.

another, extremely important reason I vote for democrats is the president's power to nominate SCOTUS judges. I am a proponent of a strong, vital, activist court and I know that a GOP president will (usually) not nominate judges that share that view. Earl Warren being the classic outlier, and even Ike said it was his worst decision as president.... from my perspective, it was his best.

[Cletus]

I know you do not use the same criteria I do. I know that party discipline is something you are unfamiliar with. I know that politics is a team sport and the only way to advance your platform is to elect people who will pledge to do so.

And your views on the democratic party's presidential candidates and the people who support those candidates shows what an unpatriotic fool you really are. No true patriot would ever demand that his fellow citizens agree with him on every issue or be branded as traitors.

It is real simple... You cannot love the USA and the principles on which she was founded and support Hillary Clinton for President. You just can't do it. The two things are polar opposites.

[Green Arrow]

dizzy yet?

you don't have it right, but nothing I will say will convince you that you are not as brilliant as you know yourself to be, so let's let that ride.

Cute. I fail to see how I'm wrong, however. Everything I said about her in that post was true. You said you would vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is regardless because of the DNC platform. Ergo...none of that stuff matters because she claims to stand on the platform (even though her record shows otherwise).

Maybe you can explain that.


another, extremely important reason I vote for democrats is the president's power to nominate SCOTUS judges. I am a proponent of a strong, vital, activist court and I know that a GOP president will (usually) not nominate judges that share that view. Earl Warren being the classic outlier, and even Ike said it was his worst decision as president.... from my perspective, it was his best.

The SCOTUS is supposed to be non-partisan, your position directly countermands the very foundation of the court.

[Green Arrow]

anyone who wishes to see Hillary Clinton or anyone else the Democrats are currently putting out there has a deep hatred of this country and wishes to see it destroyed.

That is stupid.

[Cletus]

That is stupid.

Thinking it is stupid is stupid.

Only someone who wants the US to be something other than the nation the Founders envisioned would vote for someone like Clinton.

[Matty]

Cute. I fail to see how I'm wrong, however. Everything I said about her in that post was true. You said you would vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is regardless because of the DNC platform. Ergo...none of that stuff matters because she claims to stand on the platform (even though her record shows otherwise).

Maybe you can explain that.



The SCOTUS is supposed to be non-partisan, your position directly countermands the very foundation of the court.


He lives in Mexico. Our Supreme Court has no jurisdiction there.

[Green Arrow]

Thinking it is stupid is stupid.

Only someone who wants the US to be something other than the nation the Founders envisioned would vote for someone like Clinton.

Or maybe they don't agree with your interpretation of the founder's vision. There's a lot of reasons why they would support someone like Clinton.

Assuming for a moment that you are right, however, the founders were not by any means united in their vision for the U.S. and I can't find anything written by any of them to suggest that the U.S. can never change from what they envisioned. Quite the opposite, in fact, as Jefferson thought we should have a new revolution and constitution every generation and said that the nation he and the others established was for the living, not the dead.

[maineman]

It is real simple... You cannot love the USA and the principles on which she was founded and support Hillary Clinton for President. You just can't do it. The two things are polar opposites.

So half the country is traitorous as far as you're concerned? We'll have to agree to disagree.... but, in any case, you must be an absolute laugh riot at the office Christmas party with beliefs such as those.

[maineman]

He lives in Mexico. Our Supreme Court has no jurisdiction there.

all my kids live in the US, and I will be moving back there soon. The makeup of SCOTUS is very much an item of extreme interest to me.

[zelmo1234]

what does it matter? If it was at X number of hours and Y number of days, and it has been reduced by any amount of days and any amount of hours, that its a restriction. And in any case, different states have reduced it to different levels. It is clear to me that you have not read the article I posted. When you do, we can continue this conversation.


OK here is the thing, there are absentee ballots. they are available from the day that the Ballot is printed and certified until the end of election day? How is it possible to have more time than that???

If you can't answer this question, then you are fighting with a straw man, and you only want the extended voting so the DNC can continue to cheat.

[zelmo1234]

and I think that exactly the opposite is true. IDEAS matter. Personalities don't. The two parties have vastly different philosophies. Just because some candidate is more affable, or more charismatic, or better looking doesn't change the platform that they stand upon. The first time the women got the vote in the United States, they all voted for Harding who was matinee idol handsome and James Cox, the democrat, was frumpy looking yet Harding was a horribly inept and corrupt republican regardless of his appearance. I really don't care whether the President seems like a guy I could have a beer with or tell a few jokes with, I care what his vision for America is, and the primary means of determining the vision of a candidate is to examine the platform he or she is running on. If Americans vote for a presidential candidate simply because they think he or she is likable or pleasant looking, THEY don't deserve the rights and privileges that come with being an American.

When you look at the results of the policies, not the intentions, but the actual results

Please tell me what it is that the Democrats have done that would cause you to vote for them?

[maineman]

OK here is the thing, there are absentee ballots. they are available from the day that the Ballot is printed and certified until the end of election day? How is it possible to have more time than that???

If you can't answer this question, then you are fighting with a straw man, and you only want the extended voting so the DNC can continue to cheat.

I don't want to further extend any state's early voting. I simply don't understand why any state would want to restrict and contract their early voting periods from previous limits. Why wouldn't you want to maximize the ability of your registered voters to have their voices be heard?

[maineman]

When you look at the results of the policies, not the intentions, but the actual results

Please tell me what it is that the Democrats have done that would cause you to vote for them?

I AM a democrat. I have been a member of my state's democratic committee. I have worked as a policy wonk for democratic legislators. I believe that the democratic party's platform and vision for America is the best plan. I understand that you disagree. I really don't care. We never thought we'd get your vote anyway.

[Green Arrow]

I AM a democrat. I have been a member of my state's democratic committee. I have worked as a policy wonk for democratic legislators. I believe that the democratic party's platform and vision for America is the best plan. I understand that you disagree. I really don't care. We never thought we'd get your vote anyway.

Aren't you the same guy that criticized Republicans for only giving people worth as tools for winning elections?

[maineman]

Aren't you the same guy that criticized Republicans for only giving people worth as tools for winning elections?

people are votes, and people are people. people who work on campaigns and knock on doors and man phone banks have a problem with their local zoning commission, they call the politician they worked for and things happen. I know, when I sit down at the telephone at the phone bank, that some of the people I talk with will never vote for my candidate. I have learned how to figure that out very quickly. When I do, I terminate the phone call, and politely say good night. We can't win the hearts of every voter. We can win some, and some we already have won years ago. We only hope that the number we already have in the bank and the number we win over with a phone call or a letter to the editor or a visit in their kitchen by the candidate will all go out and vote and that number will prevail. And if we DO prevail and we DO gain a majority in some state or national legislative body, we'll try to advance the principles of our platform. And if we DON'T, we'll do whatever we can through Roberts Rules of Order or Mason's Rules of Order to slow down our opponents as they try to advance THEIR platform. It never ends. It's what governance in America is all about.

[Cletus]

So half the country is traitorous as far as you're concerned? We'll have to agree to disagree.... but, in any case, you must be an absolute laugh riot at the office Christmas party with beliefs such as those.

I never said anything about being "traitorous". That would suggest they are actively providing aid and comfort to our enemies.

What I said is that they obviously hate the United States and the ideals on which this country was founded. There is no other way to explain how you could support someone whose stated mission is to unravel those ideals and force the country in a direction far different from anything her Founders intended.

[maineman]

I never said anything about being "traitorous". That would suggest they are actively providing aid and comfort to our enemies.

What I said is that they obviously hate the United States and the ideals on which this country was founded. There is no other way to explain how you could support someone whose stated mission is to unravel those ideals and force the country in a direction far different from anything her Founders intended.

you words:


anyone who wishes to see Hillary Clinton or anyone else the Democrats are currently putting out there has a deep hatred of this country and wishes to see it destroyed.


I think most folks would agree that an American citizen who has a deep hatred for this country and wishes to see it destroyed is pretty much the textbook definition of a traitor. Now... if you chose to back down from your inflammatory rhetoric, that would be really nice. If not, I'll call a spade a spade.

[Cletus]

you words:



I think most folks would agree that an American citizen who has a deep hatred for this country and wishes to see it destroyed is pretty much the textbook definition of a traitor. Now... if you chose to back down from your inflammatory rhetoric, that would be really nice. If not, I'll call a spade a spade.

They might... if they don't know the definition of treason.

I stand by what I said and you can continue calling a hammer a spade if you feel so inclined.

[maineman]

They might... if they don't know the definition of treason.

I stand by what I said and you can continue calling a hammer a spade if you feel so inclined.

if you want to be so rigid and so foolish as to think that anyone who is a democrat hates America and wants to destroy it, we should probably just agree to not waste any of our time discussing issues like this. That certainly works for me.

[Matty]

if you want to be so rigid and so foolish as to think that anyone who is a democrat hates America and wants to destroy it, we should probably just agree to not waste any of our time discussing issues like this. That certainly works for me.


The democrats have been working mighty hard at destroying it so I don't think him foolish. You dislike it so much you moved to Mexico.

[maineman]

The democrats have been working mighty hard at destroying it so I don't think him foolish. You dislike it so much you moved to Mexico.

how in the world do you think you have any insight as to MY personal motivations for doing anything, let alone the ones I used to decide to live in Mexico for a while?

bozo.

and again.... the overheated bullshit rhetoric from the right which seeks to paint every democrat as a traitor is, in itself, destructive to the fabric of our nation.

[Green Arrow]

how in the world do you think you have any insight as to MY personal motivations for doing anything, let alone the ones I used to decide to live in Mexico for a while?

bozo.

and again.... the overheated bullshit rhetoric from the right which seeks to paint every democrat as a traitor is, in itself, destructive to the fabric of our nation.

Democrats have called Republicans terrorists and compared them to ISIL, so I am unmoved by your complaint.

[maineman]

Democrats have called Republicans terrorists and compared them to ISIL, so I am unmoved by your complaint.

if you had some posts of mine where I did either of those things, your case would be stronger, doncha think?

[Matty]

Democrats have called Republicans terrorists and compared them to ISIL, so I am unmoved by your complaint.



Yes!



http://www.allenbwest.com/2014/09/democrat-candidate-compares-gop-isil/

[Cletus]

if you want to be so rigid and so foolish as to think that anyone who is a democrat hates America and wants to destroy it, we should probably just agree to not waste any of our time discussing issues like this. That certainly works for me.

There are many ways to destroy a nation. You can do it physically, through the use of force, or you can destroy it from within, which is the mission and goal of the Left. You destroy its institutions and traditions. You destroy the moral codes and codes of law that have sustained it. You indoctrinate her children into a way of thinking that would be completely foreign and incomprehensible to previous generations.

Yes, people like Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders want to destroy this nation. The goal of Obama was to destroy this nation and he has made strides in that direction. Progressives are the enemy of all that is good and that is why they can never be allowed to govern this country again.

[maineman]

There are many ways to destroy a nation. You can do it physically, through the use of force, or you can destroy it from within, which is the mission and goal of the Left. You destroy its institutions and traditions. You destroy the moral codes and codes of law that have sustained it. You indoctrinate her children into a way of thinking that would be completely foreign and incomprehensible to previous generations.

Yes, people like Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders want to destroy this nation. The goal of Obama was to destroy this nation and he has made strides in that direction. Progressives are the enemy of all that is good and that is why they can never be allowed to govern this country again.

now... all you need to do is convince 51% of the registered voters every two years or so and then, YOUR vision of America can come to fruition.

Until then.... play politics with the rest of the country.

[Matty]

There are many ways to destroy a nation. You can do it physically, through the use of force, or you can destroy it from within, which is the mission and goal of the Left. You destroy its institutions and traditions. You destroy the moral codes and codes of law that have sustained it. You indoctrinate her children into a way of thinking that would be completely foreign and incomprehensible to previous generations.

Yes, people like Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders want to destroy this nation. The goal of Obama was to destroy this nation and he has made strides in that direction. Progressives are the enemy of all that is good and that is why they can never be allowed to govern this country again.



100% accurate. I just wonder what they intend to replace banks, corporations, churches with? When the corporations are taxed into leaving as well as the rich who will fund their wild dreams?

[Green Arrow]

if you had some posts of mine where I did either of those things, your case would be stronger, doncha think?

Politics is a team sport, isn't it? When one player in the NFL gets a penalty, the whole team has to lose yards.

[Mister D]

Um... maineman you didn't single out any particular poster or "right winger" whatever that means.



and again.... the overheated bull$#@! rhetoric from the right which seeks to paint every democrat as a traitor is, in itself, destructive to the fabric of our nation.

[Matty]

Um... @maineman (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1289) you didn't single out any particular poster or "right winger" whatever that means.


Game, set, match.

[Mister D]

Game, set, match.

Most of these clowns play checkers.

[Chris]

how in the world do you think you have any insight as to MY personal motivations for doing anything, let alone the ones I used to decide to live in Mexico for a while?

bozo.

and again.... the overheated bullshit rhetoric from the right which seeks to paint every democrat as a traitor is, in itself, destructive to the fabric of our nation.

Don't call members names. Discuss topic.

[maineman]

Politics is a team sport, isn't it? When one player in the NFL gets a penalty, the whole team has to lose yards.

when one player makes an error in MLB, the whole team suffers, no doubt, but the statistics for each member of the team are not impacted.

aren't sports metaphors so much fun???

[maineman]

Um... @maineman (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1289) you didn't single out any particular poster or "right winger" whatever that means.

those for whom the shoe fits, are already aware of that fact.

[Tahuyaman]

The question of this thread is why do Democrats support Hillary Clinton.

The answer is obvious. She's the candidate who's been waiting in line the longest and they will vote for anyone, no matter who it is, as long as there is a D after their name.

[Green Arrow]

when one player makes an error in MLB, the whole team suffers, no doubt, but the statistics for each member of the team are not impacted.

Maybe not in the MLB, but in the NFL? Every time Demaryius Thomas or Random Chargers Receiver That Isn't Antionio Gates drops the ball, Peyton Manning/Brock Osweiler and Philip Rivers feel it in the stats. Those drops count as incompletions which hurt the QB's stat line.

[Tahuyaman]

Team sports require individuals to do their job. What a breakthrough.

[maineman]

Maybe not in the MLB, but in the NFL? Every time Demaryius Thomas or Random Chargers Receiver That Isn't Antionio Gates drops the ball, Peyton Manning/Brock Osweiler and Philip Rivers feel it in the stats. Those drops count as incompletions which hurt the QB's stat line.

so then the question is: which major league sport is a more appropriate metaphor for American politics?

is that really a discussion you would like to waste any more band width on?

or would the wise man say that maybe we ought to look for a more universally acceptable metaphor, or abandon metaphor altogether and simply speak about politics as it is.... a game/struggle/war/whatever other word you care to use between different philosophies about governance... realizing, as I know you do, that there are actually merely shades of grey differences between the two to begin with.

But hey.... if "which candidate would I rather have a beer with" is a good enough yardstick for president for you, go for it. I, on the other hand, realize that all politicians are flawed and egotistical and self-serving to a large degree... and in the end, for me... it all boils down to how I was raised, which platform I more closely identify with, and what SCOTUS will become as a result of my vote. Would I more rather have a beer with Hillary than I would John Kasich? Absolutely not. But I will ALWAYS vote for the democrat over the most affable, gregarious, charismatic, gosh darn friendly republican because I believe that, in the final analysis, such a vote will be better for our country. That's what I deeply believe and have believed for nearly sixty years... ever since I watched my Dad's good friend and mentor, accept the democratic nomination for president for the second straight time. I was only six at the time, but my loyalty to the ideals of the democratic party were planted then and still grow strong. Don't like it? Don't like ME? Don't like my party? I don't give a shit. I always want my team to win, because I deeply believe that when MY team wins, America wins. YMMV.

[Mister D]

There is something frightfully shallow about party politics particularly in the US. Maineman is much older than I am so I can sort of understand it to a degree. There were arguably substantial differences between the parties at one point. :undecided:

That said, the sports metaphor is spot on although not quite in the way it was used here. Even a cursory review of the comments on this forum regarding American politics leaves one with the impression that many Americans are frivolous. They might as well be rooting for their favorite football or basketball team.

[Green Arrow]

so then the question is: which major league sport is a more appropriate metaphor for American politics?

is that really a discussion you would like to waste any more band width on?

I'd really rather you just answer the question I posed to you directly (without your usual sophistry) or admit to the double standard, actually.


But hey.... if "which candidate would I rather have a beer with" is a good enough yardstick for president for you, go for it. I, on the other hand, realize that all politicians are flawed and egotistical and self-serving to a large degree... and in the end, for me... it all boils down to how I was raised, which platform I more closely identify with, and what SCOTUS will become as a result of my vote. Would I more rather have a beer with Hillary than I would John Kasich? Absolutely not. But I will ALWAYS vote for the democrat over the most affable, gregarious, charismatic, gosh darn friendly republican because I believe that, in the final analysis, such a vote will be better for our country. That's what I deeply believe and have believed for nearly sixty years... ever since I watched my Dad's good friend and mentor, accept the democratic nomination for president for the second straight time. I was only six at the time, but my loyalty to the ideals of the democratic party were planted then and still grow strong. Don't like it? Don't like ME? Don't like my party? I don't give a shit. I always want my team to win, because I deeply believe that when MY team wins, America wins. YMMV.

You wasted an awful lot of keystrokes on a strawman. I don't care if a candidate has an absolutely detestable personality, if they have positions I agree with AND have the record to show for it, they will get my vote. I don't give a shit what team they are on or how much I like their uniforms, the candidate with positions I agree with and a record of standing for those positions is the candidate that I vote for.

If a candidate has positions I agree with and the record to prove it, AND a nice personality, that's just icing on the cake.

[maineman]

and what if neither candidate has a bunch of positions you can agree with? what do you do? write in your favorite?

[maineman]

and if you find that the positions you most agree with are contained within one of the party's platforms, as opposed to the other's, which candidate do you think will embody more of those positions? The one standing on the platform you tend to agree with, or the one standing on the platform you don't?

If you look back at the candidates that both parties have nominated over the last three quarters of a century, you will be hard pressed to find one who opposes more planks in his party's platform than he supports.

[Green Arrow]

and what if neither candidate has a bunch of positions you can agree with? what do you do? write in your favorite?

My threshold is 51%. If a candidate supports at least 51% of the positions I agree with and have a record to show for it, I'll vote for them. If neither of the two major parties offers that candidate in the general, I'll look at the third parties. If there are no candidates in the third parties that meet my 51% qualification, then yes, I'll write in my ultimate preference.


and if you find that the positions you most agree with are contained within one of the party's platforms, as opposed to the other's, which candidate do you think will embody more of those positions? The one standing on the platform you tend to agree with, or the one standing on the platform you don't?

I have positions that mesh with both parties and positions that conflict with both parties, which is why I prefer to examine individual candidates.


If you look back at the candidates that both parties have nominated over the last three quarters of a century, you will be hard pressed to find one who opposes more planks in his party's platform than he supports.

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

[maineman]

unlike you, my positions much more closely mesh with the democratic party platform than the republicans, which makes my choice for president self-evident.

If someone like you is on the fence, then I can completely understand how you might feel compelled to switch sides from time to time. I am not on that fence and I refuse to have ANYBODY tell me that, by being strongly committed to one side, I am less than a patriotic or loyal American.

[Green Arrow]

unlike you, my positions much more closely mesh with the democratic party platform than the republicans, which makes my choice for president self-evident.

If someone like you is on the fence, then I can completely understand how you might feel compelled to switch sides from time to time. I am not on that fence and I refuse to have ANYBODY tell me that, by being strongly committed to one side, I am less than a patriotic or loyal American.

I agree with that. I would much prefer we stayed away from that destructive rhetoric, but unfortunately, both sides love to wallow in it and Donald Trump will only make it worse.

We would have been far better off following the advice of George Washington and avoiding political parties altogether, but that box of Pandora's has been opened for a long time.

[maineman]

and, given the fact that I understand that, if you want one party's platform to prevail, you need to ensure that that party gains or retains majorities in legislatures, both state and federal. THAT is where the team aspect of politics comes into play, imo. What sense is it to vote for president from one party and then vote for the opposite party's candidates for congress? Give one side four years to run their offense... see where they've taken us, and then, if they've done a pretty good job, vote for them again. If they've failed miserably and they done so by their own hand, and not simply by the recalcitrance of their opponents, then vote them out. If you believe that they would have made progress in the right direction without the obstacles of the minority party, vote more of them in next time so that filibusters and other such tricks are not available to the minority...and then reevaluate them again.... if they've done better, keep them on offense, if not, vote the bums out and bring in the other team and let them try.

[Green Arrow]

and, given the fact that I understand that, if you want one party's platform to prevail, you need to ensure that that party gains or retains majorities in legislatures, both state and federal. THAT is where the team aspect of politics comes into play, imo. What sense is it to vote for president from one party and then vote for the opposite party's candidates for congress? Give one side four years to run their offense... see where they've taken us, and then, if they've done a pretty good job, vote for them again. If they've failed miserably and they done so by their own hand, and not simply by the recalcitrance of their opponents, then vote them out. If you believe that they would have made progress in the right direction without the obstacles of the minority party, vote more of them in next time so that filibusters and other such tricks are not available to the minority...and then reevaluate them again.... if they've done better, keep them on offense, if not, vote the bums out and bring in the other team and let them try.

The problem I have is that we've given Republicans and Democrats over 200 years to run their offense, and nothing changes. In fact, even in years like the Reagan years when things look pretty good and it looks like a success, things are happening in the background that are actually continuing to make things worse in the long term.

What we are seeing today is the confluence of decades and decades of bad economic policy and bad foreign policy. Rome was not built in a day and America's problems weren't caused by one or two presidents. The Federal Reserve was created in 1913 and its existence has been devastating to the American economy. Bad housing policy in the '90s had a large role to play in the housing crisis (and resulting economic recession) of 2007. Eisenhower overthrew the democratically-elected government of Iran in 1953, and that action set into motion a chain of events that led directly to the current problems with Iran we face today. George W. Bush's successful overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003 created a power vaccuum that ISIL was more than happy to fill ten years later in 2013.

I could go on, but I think I've made my point.

[maineman]

I do not disagree with much that you have said.

I guess I am realistic enough to understand that entrenched political power is tough to dislodge... and when you have literally a handful of families owning as much of America as the rest of us, and they can buy politicians to cut their taxes to give them more money to buy more politicians to cut their taxes even more, it seems as if "democracy" is just a word and oligarchy is the reality.

If that is the case, maybe we are all just members of different string quartets fiddling away on the decks of the Titanic and there are only enough life rafts to save those handful of families. I hope not, but I've chosen my quartet regardless.

One of my kids wants me to support Hillary. Two of them want me to support Bernie. Their heads and hearts are in the right place, imo... and the world I leave to them will need to be fixed by them. My generation has proven incapable of the task.

[Green Arrow]

I do not disagree with much that you have said.

I guess I am realistic enough to understand that entrenched political power is tough to dislodge... and when you have literally a handful of families owning as much of America as the rest of us, and they can buy politicians to cut their taxes to give them more money to buy more politicians to cut their taxes even more, it seems as if "democracy" is just a word and oligarchy is the reality.

If that is the case, maybe we are all just members of different string quartets fiddling away on the decks of the Titanic and there are only enough life rafts to save those handful of families. I hope not, but I've chosen my quartet regardless.

One of my kids wants me to support Hillary. Two of them want me to support Bernie. Their heads and hearts are in the right place, imo... and the world I leave to them will need to be fixed by them. My generation has proven incapable of the task.

I understand that and agree to an extent. My issue is, if everybody that was tired of business as usual stopped fiddling away on the titanic and started taking pieces of the ship to build more rafts, maybe we could save more people. Millions of people acknowledge the failures of our system and wish for something better, but for whatever reason, almost none of them are actually willing to do what it takes to fix it.

Maybe my position is overly idealistic, but I think if several million voters stopped voting for Democrats and Republicans for just one election cycle, they might just get the message and we might not even have to build more rafts, we might be able to just turn the whole damn ship around.

[maineman]

I understand that and agree to an extent. My issue is, if everybody that was tired of business as usual stopped fiddling away on the titanic and started taking pieces of the ship to build more rafts, maybe we could save more people. Millions of people acknowledge the failures of our system and wish for something better, but for whatever reason, almost none of them are actually willing to do what it takes to fix it.

Maybe my position is overly idealistic, but I think if several million voters stopped voting for Democrats and Republicans for just one election cycle, they might just get the message and we might not even have to build more rafts, we might be able to just turn the whole damn ship around.

I don't know whether your position is overly idealistic or not. I DO know, however, that I am an old dog.... and I have been a democratic political activist for nearly a half a century. At this late stage in my life, I am content to tune my violin, play as well as I can play, and hope that my young adult (25, 29, 41 years old) children can move us further and faster in the right direction than my generation has been able to accomplish.

[Tahuyaman]

The party hacks can always find a way to justify their mindless position.

[Green Arrow]

The party hacks can always find a way to justify their mindless position.

Have you made it your duty to disrupt substantive discussions, or something?

[Tahuyaman]

Have you made it your duty to disrupt substantive discussions, or something?

are you a party hack and offended by my comment?

[Green Arrow]

are you a party hack and offended by my comment?

No, I am not a party hack, but yes, the divisiveness you support offends me. It offends me on a very deep level because that divisiveness is destroying my country.

[maineman]

No, I am not a party hack, but yes, the divisiveness you support offends me. It offends me on a very deep level because that divisiveness is destroying my country.
Ouch!

[maineman]

The party hacks can always find a way to justify their mindless position.
I'd imagine you have NEVER read the election yesr plarforms of either party, let alone both of them, every four years for the past forty plus years as I have.

But that's understanable. They both have some pretty big words, and you're really not all that bright.

Carry on, sarge.

[Cletus]

No, I am not a party hack, but yes, the divisiveness you support offends me. It offends me on a very deep level because that divisiveness is destroying my country.

The country is sharply divided. Perhaps more sharply divided than at any time since the 1860s. The question that needs to be asked is "Why" and the answer is to be found in the positions and rhetoric of what we classify Left and Right. For me, it is really simple. There is only one issue that matters and everything else is just an extension of that. That issue is keeping Government constrained to operating within the limits set by the Constitution of the United States. Everything else is noise.

If you advocate powers for the government, not granted by the Constitution, I will oppose you. I don't care what your motives are, I will oppose you.

[Cletus]

I'd imagine you have NEVER read the election yesr plarforms of either party, let alone both of them, every four years for the past forty plus years as I have.

But that's understanable. They both have some pretty big words, and you're really not all that bright.

Carry on, sarge.

If you had actually read them, there is no way you can support the Democrat Party and still claim to be a man of conscience and a loyal American.

And you might want to remember that those "Sergeants" and "Chiefs" of whim you seem so contemptuous are the ones who actually make the Services work. Officers best serve by staying out of the way. They always have.

[maineman]

If you had actually read them, there is no way you can support the Democrat Party and still claim to be a man of conscience and a loyal American.

And you might want to remember that those "Sergeants" and "Chiefs" of whim you seem so contemptuous are the ones who actually make the Services work. Officers best serve by staying out of the way. They always have.
Except when it comes to driving big ships. Chiefs don't have a lot of history doing that very well, whereas I do.

And, as I have already stated, your extremely narrow and intolerant opinion about the varying political philosophies which have ALWAYS been a part of the fabric of our democracy makes me wanna puke.

Such intolerance makes you a disgrace to the uniform you claim to have worn.

[Green Arrow]

If you had actually read them, there is no way you can support the Democrat Party and still claim to be a man of conscience and a loyal American.

This is the kind of divisive rhetoric I was talking about. None of the founders advocated the nonsense you spout.

[Cletus]

Except when it comes to driving big ships. Chiefs don't have a lot of history doing that very well, whereas I do.

And, as I have already stated, your extremely narrow and intolerant opinion about the varying political philosophies which have ALWAYS been a part of the fabric of our democracy makes me wanna puke.

Such intolerance makes you a disgrace to the uniform you claim to have worn.

There is nothing you could do that a Chief couldn't do better with his eyes closed and cup of coffee in his hand.

Apparently, you fall into the camp that sees the Constitution as more of an impediment to your political agenda than as the very foundation of our system of government. for that, I hope I make you puke and there is no Chief around to keep you from choking on it.

[maineman]

And here is a little proof of the irrational intolerance of Cletus.

cut and paste one paragraph from the 2012 Democratic Platform that would support your assertion that believing in the sentiments of that paragraph would make anyone not a person of conscience or a loyal American.

I'll wait.

[Cletus]

This is the kind of divisive rhetoric I was talking about. None of the founders advocated the nonsense you spout.

The Framers of the Constitution gave us the Supreme Law of the Land... the rule book for running this country. I find it hilarious that you, who just moments ago in another thread rambled on about obeying the rules, would be so hypocritical when it comes to the most important rules of all.

[Green Arrow]

The Framers of the Constitution gave us the Supreme Law of the Land... the rule book for running this country. I find it hilarious that you, who just moments ago in another thread rambled on about obeying the rules, would be so hypocritical when it comes to the most important rules of all.

Really? Please do point me to a statement of mine where I ever advocated for abandoning the constitution.

I'll wait.

[Cletus]

And here is a little proof of the irrational intolerance of @Cletus (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1708).

cut and paste one paragraph from the 2012 Democratic Platform that would support your assertion that believing in the sentiments of that paragraph would make anyone not a person of conscience or a loyal American.

I'll wait.

A Party platform is worthless. What matters is what those in power actually do. Do you believe that the current President or more importantly, the candidate you are going to support for President will insist that the Government act within the limitations placed on it by the Constitution?

Be honest.

Do you advocate the government exercising any powers not specifically enumerated in the Constitution?

Yes or No?

[maineman]

There is nothing you could do that a Chief couldn't do better with his eyes closed and cup of coffee in his hand.

Apparently, you fall into the camp that sees the Constitution as more of an impediment to your political agenda than as the very foundation of our system of government. for that, I hope I make you puke and there is no Chief around to keep you from choking on it.how many CPOs do you know that have maneuvered a nuclear powered aircraft carrier into the wind and maintained 30 kts of relative wind ten degrees off the port bow during launch and recovery operations in state five seas?

Here's a clue: none. It's too tough a job and too important a job that no birdfarm skipper in the history of the US Navy would ever risk entrusting it to anyone other than a seasoned OOD with a whole lot of experience driving during flight ops. You clearly are talking out of your ass. Now go away. You sicken me, but more importantly, you fucking BORE me. Fly fly.

[Cletus]

Really? Please do point me to a statement of mine where I ever advocated for abandoning the constitution.

I'll wait.

You just accused me of intolerance and divisiveness for demanding that Government adhere to our Constitution. You are right about that. Every American SHOULD be intolerant of Government exceeding its Constitutional authority.

Do you support any exercise of power by the Government that exceeds its Constitutional limitations?

Yes or No?

[maineman]

A Party platform is worthless. What matters is what those in power actually do. Do you believe that the current President or more importantly, the candidate you are going to support for President will insist that the Government act within the limitations placed on it by the Constitution?

Be honest.

Do you advocate the government exercising any powers not specifically enumerated in the Constitution?

Yes or No?why am I not surprised that you could not back up your inflammatory rhetoric with some facts?

:yawn:

booooooring.

[Cletus]

how many CPOs do you know that have maneuvered a nuclear powered aircraft carrier into the wind and maintained 30 kts of relative wind ten degrees off the port bow during launch and recovery operations in state five seas?

It is not their job. That doesn't mean they couldn't do it.


Here's a clue: none. It's too tough a job and too important a job that no birdfarm skipper in the history of the US Navy would ever risk entrusting it to anyone other than a seasoned OOD with a whole lot of experience driving during flight ops. You clearly are talking out of your ass. Now go away. You sicken me, but more importantly, you fucking BORE me. Fly fly.

You WAY overestimate your worth.

[Cletus]

why am I not surprised that you could back up your inflammatory rhetotic with some facts?

:yawn:

booooooring.

So, are you unable or just unwilling to answer the question I asked of you?

Are you ashamed?

[Green Arrow]

You just accused me of intolerance and divisiveness for demanding that Government adhere to our Constitution.

That is incorrect. I did not accuse you of intolerance, I accused you of divisiveness. I did not accuse you of divisiveness for demanding that government adhere to our constitution, I accused you of divisiveness for having a wildly illogical and hysterical opinion that roughly half the country hates and wants to destroy America just because they have a different opinion on government than you do.

My positions and comments are stated clearly and without ambiguity, so I fail to see why some people have so much difficulty accurately criticizing what I say.


Do you support any exercise of power by the Government that exceeds its Constitutional limitations?

Yes or No?

No.

Sidebar...why do you capitalize words that should not be capitalized in this context?

[maineman]

So, are you unable or just unwilling to answer the question I asked of you?

Are you ashamed?
Are you unable or just unwilling to provide an answer to post #227? Are you ashamed? Or embarrassed?

or both?

[Cletus]

That is incorrect. I did not accuse you of intolerance, I accused you of divisiveness. I did not accuse you of divisiveness for demanding that government adhere to our constitution, I accused you of divisiveness for having a wildly illogical and hysterical opinion that roughly half the country hates and wants to destroy America just because they have a different opinion on government than you do.

It is very simple. The Constitution is not the least bit ambiguous. If you have any questions about its meaning, the Framers wrote extensively about their intent. All you have to do is read what they had to say. There really is no such thing as just a "different opinion on government" when it comes to what our government is and is not allowed to do within the parameters established by the Constitution. the powers of government are specifically enumerated. If you advocate operating outside the Constitution and allowing government to exercise powers it does not lawfully possess, you are advocating the destruction of our system of government because government can only exercise power by restricting liberty.

It is really not very complicated.

[maineman]

It is not their job. That doesn't mean they couldn't do it.



You WAY overestimate your worth.and I would suggest that, for someone who has obviously never witnessed carrier flight ops in rough seas, you clearly are talking out your ass. They could NOT do it for the simple reason that they have never, in all of their years of training and experience, ever had a bit of training in order to be able to do it. Using your ridiculous logic, I am sure that any CPO in the Navy could play the violin solo for Mozart's 40th. Even though it's not their job doesn't mean they couldn't do it. Right?

[Cletus]

Are you unable or just unwilling to provide an answer to post #227? Are you ashamed? Or embarrassed?

or both?

I am not interested in what was in the Democrat Party's 2012 platform. I am interested in what was actually done by those in power.

I really hope you drove your boat better than you engage in discussion.

[Green Arrow]

It is very simple. The Constitution is not the least bit ambiguous. If you have any questions about its meaning, the Framers wrote extensively about their intent. All you have to do is read what they had to say. There really is no such thing as just a "different opinion on government" when it comes to what our government is and is not allowed to do within the parameters established by the Constitution. the powers of government are specifically enumerated. If you advocate operating outside the Constitution and allowing government to exercise powers it does not lawfully possess, you are advocating the destruction of our system of government because government can only exercise power by restricting liberty.

It is really not very complicated.

The constitution is not the Bible and the founders were not gods. They were imperfect men just like the rest of us who had plenty of disagreements. None of them had a shared vision for how the nation should be and not all of them even liked the constitution. Jefferson, for example, didn't want the constitution at all and was so opposed to it that the others had to hold a vote on it while he was essentially out of town. Jefferson favored the Articles of Confederation over the constitution.

George Washington detested political parties and thought allowing political parties to exist would destroy our nation. (Sidebar: Clearly he was correct.)

John Adams was a tyrant who thought only those of noble breeding and great wealth should be able to vote and serve in government. His Alien and Sedition Acts were the precursor to the PATRIOT Act and had the Anti-Federalists in Congress afraid to even speak on the floor of Congress for fear that Adams would have them rounded up and put on trial.

Alexander Hamilton supported the creation of the Central Bank (the precursor to today's Federal Reserve).

Hamilton and Adams were both Federalists who supported a strong central government (the federal government), while Jefferson and Madison were Anti-Federalists that supported a weaker federal government and stronger state governments.

Benjamin Rush wanted a Bible in every school and wanted the Bible taught as a textbook.

The things these men all wanted for America were very different and very disparate, and as clear as you say the constitution is, they all thought it allowed for different powers. Your view is dogmatic, not factual.

[Cletus]

and I would suggest that, for someone who has obviously never witnessed carrier flight ops in rough seas, you clearly are talking out your ass. They could NOT do it for the simple reason that they have never, in all of their years of training and experience, ever had a bit of training in order to be able to do it. Using your ridiculous logic, I am sure that any CPO in the Navy could play the violin solo for Mozart's 40th. Even though it's not their job doesn't mean they couldn't do it. Right?

Again, you missed the point. If the Chief had to do it and was trained to do it, he could do it as well or better than any officer on your little boat. You have shown a great deal of contempt in your use of the word "Sarge" when addressing a former member of the Ranger Regiment in this forum.

Officers exist for only one reason... you are a control measure placed by Congress on enlisted personnel. You don't do anything one of your NCOs couldn't do as well. In fact, quite often, NCOs spend an inordinate amount of time protecting officers from themselves. They spend most of the rest of their time protecting junior enlisted personnel from you.

[Cletus]

The constitution is not the Bible and the founders were not gods.

The Constitution is far more important than the Bible. Your failure to understand that, although not surprising, is disappointing.

[maineman]

If you had actually read them, there is no way you can support the Democrat Party and still claim to be a man of conscience and a loyal American.

my point again is this: how in the world can you make a statement like this when you clearly have never read the democratic party platform?


Are you actually so incredibly dimwitted that you are incapable of seeing the obvious idiocy of that statement???

[Cletus]

my point again is this: how in the world can you make a statement like this when you clearly have never read the democratic party platform?


Are you actually so incredibly dimwitted that you are incapable of seeing the obvious idiocy of that statement???

I do not have to have read the Democrat Party platform to see what the Democrats actually did while in power. If their actions reflected the party platform, that would make it a terrible platform. If their actions were not in compliance with the platform, the platform becomes completely irrelevant.

Either way, the only thing that really matters is what was done.

[Green Arrow]

The Constitution is far more important than the Bible. Your failure to understand that, although not surprising, is disappointing.

I am a religious person, no work of man will ever supersede the work of G-d in my mind. The founders agreed, why don't you, since their opinion is so holy to you?

[maineman]

Again, you missed the point. If the Chief had to do it and was trained to do it, he could do it as well or better than any officer on your little boat. You have shown a great deal of contempt in your use of the word "Sarge" when addressing a former member of the Ranger Regiment in this forum.

Officers exist for only one reason... you are a control measure placed by Congress on enlisted personnel. You don't do anything one of your NCOs couldn't do as well. In fact, quite often, NCOs spend an inordinate amount of time protecting officers from themselves. They spend most of the rest of their time protecting junior enlisted personnel from you.again...a ground pounder doesn't know shit from fat meat about what happens on a ship. Sure...if we spent ten years teaching a CPO how to play the violin, he could perform MozartS 40 th. Officers are trained for years and years how to handle ships. Enlisted personnel aren't. No chief in the Navy could ever handle a carrier better than I could....for the simple reason that the Navy does not chose to invest years and years training chiefs to do that. They have many vitally impotant tasks on board an aircraft carrier. Shiphandling is not one of them.

[Cletus]

I am a religious person, no work of man will ever supersede the work of G-d in my mind. The founders agreed, why don't you, since their opinion is so holy to you?

Every man is entitled to his superstitions. In fact, if they are organized into a religion, they are protected by that rule book you hold in such low regard.

[maineman]

I do not have to have read the Democrat Party platform to see what the Democrats actually did while in power. If their actions reflected the party platform, that would make it a terrible platform. If their actions were not in compliance with the platform, the platform becomes completely irrelevant.

Either way, the only thing that really matters is what was done.

you will retract your statement about platforms, I take it?

[Green Arrow]

Every man is entitled to his superstitions. In fact, if they are organized into a religion, they are protected by that rule book you hold in such low regard.

I don't hold the constitution in low regard, I simply don't elevate it higher than a religious text. I don't worship the founders or the constitution. The way you treat them borders on being cultish.