Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 608

darth_ender said:

NeverarGreat said:

darth_ender said:

-Blacks gaining the right to eat in any restaurant they want

Oh, you mean those laws that were limited to the Southern states and were first introduced by the Democrat Party, and even when Republicans later began to support those laws, it was still isolated to the South.

It irks me when people conflate the Democratic party of the late 20th - 21st century and the pre-realignment Democratic party that originally represented rural America and the South. In short, the Democratic party was socially conservative until Roosevelt, and even then it took until the civil rights movement for conservative southern Democrats to abandon the party for the Republican ticket.

It irks me when people conflate the opinions of some Republicans with the opinions of all Republicans, or some conservatives with all conservatives, or holding some views with holding all views. It really irks me that, just because there are racist Republicans or uneducated conservatives or a moron Republican for a president, that so many liberals feel that they are so obviously right on every issue that there is no debate about anything.

By the way, did you actually read the rest of that sentence you quoted?

We seem to be saying the same thing. It’s just that your use of ‘Democrat party’ could be interpreted to imply that the modern Democratic party has more than a nominal relationship to the party as it existed a century ago, and I wanted to give more historical context in this regard. The fact that many constituencies which were solidly Democratic many years ago in the south are now solidly Republican is not exactly in dispute.

darth_ender said:

Well, it’s hard to sound intelligent in your arguments when one ignorantly makes insulting comments, but I hope the substance of my previous posts will be taken into account more than my error.

Yes, and I agree with your sentiment, seemingly on all fronts—from Frink’s responses, to conflating the bad apples with the whole bunch, to liberals thinking themselves or their arguments intellectually superior.

For myself though, I really wonder how often Republicans (or perhaps mainly those with power or influence?) use “defending the life and liberty of the child” as a banner of supposed morality when really that’s not their endgame at all. For example, it was people on the Republican side that conflated Starbucks removing winter depictions from their cups as a moral attack on Christmas. Certainly there is an argument to be made about when life starts or how abortion should be regulated. But many Republicans seem to be as intransigently firm from feeling morally superior as Democrats are at feeling intellectually superior, and they both aren’t interested in furthering actual debate.

As a Democrat myself—A Christian Democrat—it irks me all around.

NeverarGreat said:

darth_ender said:

NeverarGreat said:

darth_ender said:

-Blacks gaining the right to eat in any restaurant they want

Oh, you mean those laws that were limited to the Southern states and were first introduced by the Democrat Party, and even when Republicans later began to support those laws, it was still isolated to the South.

It irks me when people conflate the Democratic party of the late 20th - 21st century and the pre-realignment Democratic party that originally represented rural America and the South. In short, the Democratic party was socially conservative until Roosevelt, and even then it took until the civil rights movement for conservative southern Democrats to abandon the party for the Republican ticket.

It irks me when people conflate the opinions of some Republicans with the opinions of all Republicans, or some conservatives with all conservatives, or holding some views with holding all views. It really irks me that, just because there are racist Republicans or uneducated conservatives or a moron Republican for a president, that so many liberals feel that they are so obviously right on every issue that there is no debate about anything.

By the way, did you actually read the rest of that sentence you quoted?

We seem to be saying the same thing. It’s just that your use of ‘Democrat party’ could be interpreted to imply that the modern Democratic party has more than a nominal relationship to the party as it existed a century ago, and I wanted to give more historical context in this regard. The fact that many constituencies which were solidly Democratic many years ago in the south are now solidly Republican is not exactly in dispute.

Just as the parties changed, so have the constituencies. The constituencies of a century ago are dead. The reasons for realignments are interesting, but not conclusive as to what constituencies believe today.

darth_ender said:

conservatism has done a lot of good for the country.

I’m not attacking you for saying this, but from my perspective conservatism has many misguided ideas like using supply-side economics (which historically doesn’t work), or removing regulations that protect businesses from hurting or taking advantage of people (a recent example of which is Net Neutrality).

I am genuinely interested in having examples of how conservatism has helped this country, and as a Democrat I’d like to hear it from someone who isn’t full of Fox News talking points. (Also I’m not saying that liberalism is somehow superior.)

darth_ender said:

NeverarGreat said:

darth_ender said:

NeverarGreat said:

darth_ender said:

-Blacks gaining the right to eat in any restaurant they want

Oh, you mean those laws that were limited to the Southern states and were first introduced by the Democrat Party, and even when Republicans later began to support those laws, it was still isolated to the South.

It irks me when people conflate the Democratic party of the late 20th - 21st century and the pre-realignment Democratic party that originally represented rural America and the South. In short, the Democratic party was socially conservative until Roosevelt, and even then it took until the civil rights movement for conservative southern Democrats to abandon the party for the Republican ticket.

It irks me when people conflate the opinions of some Republicans with the opinions of all Republicans, or some conservatives with all conservatives, or holding some views with holding all views. It really irks me that, just because there are racist Republicans or uneducated conservatives or a moron Republican for a president, that so many liberals feel that they are so obviously right on every issue that there is no debate about anything.

By the way, did you actually read the rest of that sentence you quoted?

We seem to be saying the same thing. It’s just that your use of ‘Democrat party’ could be interpreted to imply that the modern Democratic party has more than a nominal relationship to the party as it existed a century ago, and I wanted to give more historical context in this regard. The fact that many constituencies which were solidly Democratic many years ago in the south are now solidly Republican is not exactly in dispute.

I apologize, both for my snarkiness, as well as for my confused message. I was trying to say, as it seemed to me that Frink was painting Republicans or conservatives as hindrances to these progressions, that conservatives and Republicans have actually advocated for disadvantaged demographics and brought progress to the nation. Sure, the nature of both parties has changed drastically, but many of the core principles remain, and conservatism has done a lot of good for the country.

Apology accepted 😃 And I apologize if I painted with too broad a brush.

It’s important to have a strong conservative party in the US, guided by the founding principles of our nation and advocating for the valuable traditions of the past. I just wish that the Republican party today reflected those principles and traditions instead of bowing down before the lies, immorality, and undemocratic impulses of our current president.

chyron8472 said:

darth_ender said:

conservatism has done a lot of good for the country.

I’m not attacking you for saying this, but from my perspective conservatism has many misguided ideas like using supply-side economics (which historically doesn’t work), or removing regulations that protect businesses from hurting or taking advantage of people (a recent example of which is Net Neutrality).

I am genuinely interested in having examples of how conservatism has helped this country, and as a Democrat I’d like to hear it from someone who isn’t full of Fox News talking points. (Also I’m not saying that liberalism is somehow superior.)

Obamacare. Its conservative pedigree is indisputable: created by the Heritage Foundation, championed by Newt Gingrich, implemented by Mitt Romney. Beyond its credentials, it’s based on solidly conservative ideas – i.e. letting the marketplace meet consumer needs with the absolute bare minimum government regulation required for that to happen.

I was certainly among those on the Left who rolled their ideas at the idea that Obamacare could do anything to slow the increase in healthcare costs, but it’s demonstrated it can do just that. It’s certainly not perfect, but it works surprisingly well given it was partially disemboweled by making Medicaid expansion optional, and now by removing Gingrich’s darling individual mandate (the very one that he claimed would save conservatism). Is it superior to a single payer system? Probably not, but that fact that it works reasonably well even when hamstrung, combined with the fact that it actually got passed into law, cannot be dismissed.

Is it the Last Great Conservative Idea? Possibly. But credit where credit is due: the Heritage Foundation got one right.

JEDIT: Nevermind.

Also, looking further back, we can largely thank Orrin Hatch for CHIP, and George H. W. Bush for the ADA.

To avoid muddying the waters too much, I’m only considering ideas from conservative Republicans. So Nixon and Clinton are both out, for not clearly being one or the other.

darth_ender said:

TV’s Frink said:

NeverarGreat said:

darth_ender said:

-Blacks gaining the right to eat in any restaurant they want

Oh, you mean those laws that were limited to the Southern states and were first introduced by the Democrat Party, and even when Republicans later began to support those laws, it was still isolated to the South.

It irks me when people conflate the Democratic party of the late 20th - 21st century and the pre-realignment Democratic party that originally represented rural America and the South. In short, the Democratic party was socially conservative until Roosevelt, and even then it took until the civil rights movement for conservative southern Democrats to abandon the party for the Republican ticket.

Not to mention conflating the old Republican party with the present-day Republican party. The Republican party ended slavery? Yay! That Republican party no longer exists.

Now all Republicans are racists! It’s so simple to put them all in a box instead of using my head a bit! Yay!

The vast majority of Republicans supported a racist for the head of their party. If you do that, you’re either a racist or someone who’s fine with racism. At some point, there’s no difference.

Quick question to the pro-lifers here: For what reason do you think women are getting abortions past 20 weeks?

darth_ender said:

NeverarGreat said:

darth_ender said:

-Blacks gaining the right to eat in any restaurant they want

Oh, you mean those laws that were limited to the Southern states and were first introduced by the Democrat Party, and even when Republicans later began to support those laws, it was still isolated to the South.

It irks me when people conflate the Democratic party of the late 20th - 21st century and the pre-realignment Democratic party that originally represented rural America and the South. In short, the Democratic party was socially conservative until Roosevelt, and even then it took until the civil rights movement for conservative southern Democrats to abandon the party for the Republican ticket.

It irks me when people conflate the opinions of some Republicans with the opinions of all Republicans, or some conservatives with all conservatives, or holding some views with holding all views. It really irks me that, just because there are racist Republicans or uneducated conservatives or a moron Republican for a president, that so many liberals feel that they are so obviously right on every issue that there is no debate about anything.

You’re great at these non-responses.

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

I am glad to hear the pro-life sentiments from you, Frink.

I would not characterize it as such. Only the most radical pro-choice supporters demand abortion on demand regardless of circumstance.

The real difficulty for most people on both sides is where and how to draw the line. There aren’t many absolutists on either side.

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Quick question to the pro-lifers here: For what reason do you think women are getting abortions past 20 weeks?

I assume a percentage are for the same reasons in Frink’s story or for other medical reasons

I assume a percentage just couldn’t make up their minds until after 20 weeks

I assume a percentage has to do with rape.

Perhaps there is a percentage that had a sudden drastic economic change in their lives past 20 weeks to the effect that they change their minds on wanting a child.

Perhaps a percentage of women were in a medical situation (like a coma or something) where they were not mentally able to make decisions until after 20 weeks

I assume a percentage is for reasons I can’t think of right now.

the exact value of each percentage? I do not know.

I wasn’t asking for an exact percentage. The whole point of the question is to find out what people think the percentages are.

Well said, Warb.