Discussion in 'Detroit Lions Blitz' started by def, May 1, 2017.
This is what they want us to do
Did blog hijack your account? I feel like you're just trolling at this point.
So no difference between gore and Bush. None between Obama and McCain/Romney? No difference between Hillary or this nation?
You guys gotta stop with this shit. There's no such thing as a perfect system.
What is the real difference?
Obama care and Trump care not much different
Same play book from Bush..Obama..to Trump
Still not balancing the budget
Aside from some "social" issues it's all just about the same agenda.
Bush vs. Gore as it turned out not a huge difference I doubt things would have turned out much different if Gore had won, no difference between McCain/Romney and Obama I would argue not much as McCain would be more hawkish and Romney more corporate friendly but nothing earth shattering, in the end the progression is always more power in the executive branch, more wars for questionable national gain, more debt to fund what's expedient now vs what's prudent for the future, more globalism which equates to more power to the bankers and international corporations, if someone wants to make a case for a positive Trump is causing in American politics? it's that executive power might actually get curtailed and that to me is as much of a victory as anything in the past couple decades.
You think Gore would have invaded Iraq?
Other than that, I pretty much agree there's not much difference between Obama/Romney/McCain/Hillary. All were centrists, career politicians, senators and would have governed from the middle. Wouldn't have been the gigantic laughing stock to the rest of the world Trump is.
Obama expanded the conflicts after he campaigned the opposite
I'm glad Mr. Rusty chimed in with his political expertise. We can all rest easy now. Vic thinks Jews runs the world, but the difference between Trump is he likes People, the other side doesn't. That's obvious now. He kicks ass daily and NOT EVEN THE POPE can get one in on him. I will say he should gel his hair though.
The fact that he makes the idiots cry and whine is the greatest thing ever. Anderson Pooper is like a little boy lost in the woods trying to spin everything he does.
I am amazed peeps here think what they think. We got lucky that crotch rotch witch Hillary isn't in the White House. Did you know The Clinton Foundation has been eliminated? They shut it down ha! They stopped after it was revealed a fraud haha. Trump University has nothing on that whore factory. Trump exposed the Left like no other and soon, when the desperate Russia bullet misses, the Dems will be extinct. They better put Oprah or Tom Hanks into power or Zuckerberg or Bill Gates, because the crooks on the left have been exposed as the shit balls they are. And on the right. McCain is an ass. Bush is an ass. So I am fair and balanced.
The dude hasn't even got going and that's the plan kids. They don't want him to, because Trump's a beauty. I am not a righty or a lefty. But it's nice that he stomps out bullshit and if you think he is a conman or that he is racist or a monkey, I say this...your opinion is like my asshole. We both have one.
This debate is comical. It's like debating which organization is more pathetic between the Detroit Lions and Cleveland Browns.
Or who is uglier Sandra Bernhard or Rosie.
One party denies climate change exists. The other wants to curtail it.
One party believes healthcare is a right. The other thinks it's a paid service.
One party believes economies are stimulated from the top down, the other visa versatile
You can go on and on with their differences, but really you only need to look at how divided the country is with partisanship to realize you guys are full of it. That doesn't happen if everyone is pitching the same ideas or governing the same way.
Really? cause I'm pretty sure there's a lot less troops deployed now than when he took office.
Bill Clinton had a surplus if I remember correctly.
You need to run a deficit during a recession. Anyone who's had a macro economic course knows that. You're not going to get a difference in policy there
Obama decreased our troops outside the US
This is a fact. For as long as I've been able to understand what is going on politically in the world, republicans in the White House bring war and recession. Democrats get elected after. They do what they can to clean up the mess. Then they get voted out because people buy into republican rhetoric that dems are holding back recovery of a mess the republicans made in the first place.
Who is hotter? Maxine Waters, Whoopi or Aunt Ester?
Not half as lost as Trump's own press staff.
Someone should tell them they forgot to take down their website.
Really. Which liberals do you like?
Young Lawanda Page who played Aunt Ester below. You just don't have your facts together lately def.
The illusion of choice between Republicans and Democrats was designed so they purposely opposed each other. The Great Illusion of the two-party system is that it allows the voter a choice between a liberal and a conservative government. The reality is that, whichever party wins the election, the government is, in truth, a totalitarian one. The choice is a mere distraction from the true objective. Corporate interests have tried to ensure the two parties on a national level do not diverge largely on major issues in order to ensure continuity. They use social issues and climate change to create a bigger divide.
First of all 47% of republicans believe in climate change. Over 60% of Republicans believe Carbon Dioxide should be regulated. Sure it's more of a passionate issue with liberal democrats however the policies do not change much no matter who is in office. You see big business and bankers controls policy and no matter who is in office, they will never allow climate change to hurt them financially.
The republicans said they would completely repeal Obama care but all they did is create Obama care lite. It is still universal heath care. Obama care was losing so much money and making the insurance companies rich. Even the democrats were going to have to change it in some ways.
Foreign Policy and War
Both parties support endless wars or an interventionist foreign policy. They are virtually identical here.
Spending & Economics
Both parties have engaged in deficit spending. Regardless of being recognized as fiscally conservative, Republicans are equally guilty as Democrats when it comes to government spending. The national debt from George Washington to Bill Clinton was almost doubled under Bush. Under Obama, it has more than doubled again. Democrats are typically associated with welfare and social spending while Republicans are associated with tax deductions and fiscal conservatism. Yet both parties participate in corporate and social welfare.
One of first legislations to restrain civil liberties was the Patriot Act, which provided the government with unprecedented powers. It took two parties to make the legislation into law.
I think Tech and Murtyle are both making good points. In that the differences between the two parties really isn't as great as it's played up. But you can't deny that there are some key and rather important differences.
The main difference I see:
Taxes and having to serve two divergent interest groups
Republicans have to serve the interests of two very different groups. And pleasing one group will, by default, leave the other unhappy. The two key groups they have to please are:
The religious "wacko" who wants abortion outlawed. God, guns and gays.
The wealthier voter who wants his taxes lowered. Also corporations who want regulations lowered.
The first faction "Joe Dirt." The "the little guy." He tends to be rural, less educated. White trashy. He has almost nothing in common with faction #2.
The second faction is wealthier, more educated. And could give a flying fuck less about "the little guy" and his religious values. But they need the wackos' vote so they can have their lower taxes. So they pretend to give a shit about the wacko and his interests until the election is over.
The wealthy guy wants his taxes lowered. But he faces a huge challenge. He is simply outnumbered by the middle and lower class by too great a margin. He HAS to have Joe Dirt on his side in order to get the number of votes he needs. So they spend lots and lots of money convincing Joe Dirt that their candidate (the one who is going to lower their taxes) is a swell guy who cares about wackos, cares about aborshun, etc. So every election cycle, they try to do the impossible, and convince Joe Dirt that a Massachusetts liberal and ridiculously wealthy mormon like Mitt Romney is "one of them." Or that a corporate magnate billionaire from Manhattan (Trump) suddenly cares about manufacturing jobs in the Rust Belt.
Meanwhile, the centrists and the liberals are left scratching their heads over how gullible the wacko Joe Dirt voter is. It's a lot like watching a gullible woman who keeps coming back to the abusive husband who regularly beats her. Each time saying "I swear it's going to be different this time, honey."
Each Presidential election cycle, the Republican candidate has to appeal to the "wacko" voter in order to even get to the dance. So they'll sit there with a straight face and deny science, offend gays and minorities, pretend they like to hunt and shoot guns ... dumbing themselves down to Joe Dirt's level. Then, once they secure the nomination, they have to make a complete fucking 180 in order to appeal to the undecided voter, who usually resides somewhere in the middle. So in other words, he has to completely backtrack on all the crazy bullshit he just got done saying to Joe Dirt in the primaries.
So to summarize this whole thing that makes Republicans different: In order to successfully win over all of these competing interest groups ... YOU HAVE TO BE ONE SERIOUS BULLSHITTER. Because there is simply no other type of person who could pull it off.
The Democratic candidate simply has fewer interests to appeal to. Yes, he or she has to appeal to the lower-income blacks, the Unions, and the snooty east coast Boston liberal. But none of these require the candidate to say completely off-the-wall bonkers shit. They don't need to make a complete 180. Just modest shifts in their message.
Can you give me a similar synopsis of liberals and the Democratic Party?
Yes, the Democrat/Liberal has the following factions to appeal to:
1) The "bleeding heart liberal" who cares about women's rights and wealth redistribution.
2) The Unions
3) The snooty, East Coast, latte-sipping Boston liberal who wants to "do good for mankind."
In order to win the nomination, the liberal has to appeal to the low-income black voter. As well as all the "do-gooder" humanitarians who want everyone to have healthcare and shit like that. So they'll basically promise a bunch of free shit and tell them the wealthy will pay for it.
Then, once they secure the nomination, just like the Republican, they have to make the shift to the Center. The typical American. Women who care about education and their earning potential. Middle class Parents struggling to pay their kids' education. Freelance professionals and those in the "gig economy," independent contractors who have to pay for their own health plans. yada yada
The big differentiating factor being that they didn't have to say a bunch of absolutely bonkers shit in the primaries in order to win the nomination. So it's a much smaller shift. They can spend a much greater portion of their campaign appealing to the center ... and less time apologizing for the crazy shit. Only exceptions being something like "Okay, by Universal healthcare, maybe I didn't exactly mean Universal, just mostly Universal. And when I told you that RICH GUYS would pay for it, I actually meant magic fairies would pay for it. Because right now, I could use the rich guy's campaign dollars." -- Which is all a much easier sell.
I can take a shot at describing the liberal and Democratic party's divergent groups and with few better examples than the 2016 Democratic primaries:
Trade policies the wealthy elite favoring foreign trade with little to no consideration of the working class vs. the rank and file union worker who wants his class protected (as he should considering part of his dues go to funding the Democratic party). We saw this with Sanders vs. Clinton.
Foreign policy for a party that is supposedly anti-war the drum beats for involvement in every middle eastern countries with unrest were pretty significant, here again you saw the Clintonite faction cheering on the Libyan intervention and wanting to pour even more arms and money into Syria, where as Sanders was much more non-interventionist (not supporting the attempted Syrian intervention bill in 2013).
Civil liberties for a party that fancies itself "liberal" a awful lot of Democrats voted for the Patriot act in fact Clinton did so both times she had the opportunity, Sanders on the other hand voted against the Patriot act and has been vocal about it, basically he and Rep. Paul were the proverbial angry old men in the house resisting the Patriot act since the beginning.
While it does largely avoid the religious tap dancing of the right it too has huge issues with the wealthy elite vs. its working class supporters, I thought there was a tiny opening for the working class to throw off the shackles of the two party oligarchy when Trump and Sanders were each running hot talking about trade, infrastructure, and non-interventionist foreign policy but Sanders got bought out and Trump has been a big disappointment in these areas, but I do think the disaffected groups of both parties could rally behind a candidate that was genuine in the principles of protection of civil liberties, protectionist trade, anti-globalism/corporatism, reviving the national infrastructure and avoiding wasteful spending on foreign intervention, a modern populism if you will.
Good points Hunter.
I'll add that we could see a "true" populist candidate win the election if both sides simply abandoned the idea of appealing to the center in the general elections. So you'd basically have "crazy versus crazy."
Or you could see a populist centrist candidate emerge if he simply abandoned the traditional parties so he doesn't have to appeal to any crazies on either side. That would likely require a guy with unbelievable ties to the media, because it's really really hard for an independent to get the kind of coverage needed in order to compete in the general election.
But if we actually do a crazy thing like back-to-back Trump and Sanders presidencies ... then an independent candidate might have a shot of gaining a lot of traction, simply due to the utter distaste for either major party.
What is "center" though? I don't like the left-right political spectrum because if anything there is a circular spectrum on many issues for example libertarians while most consider them "hard right" actually overlap with "hard left" on issues like foreign affairs trade and military, drug policy, civil liberties like privacy rights whistleblowing etc.
I guess a good example would be to classify me, am I libertarian, conservative, centrist, liberal? I don't think I fit in any of those compartments.
Yea, I get it. It's not a clear-cut thing.
So for the sake of over-simplifying things, I'll just say it's anyone who's not on either extreme. You seem to be like a cheerleader for the whole grassroots thing, but you don't strike me as a Marxist-inspired socialist, or a gun-toting bible-thumper -- or a special snowflake like Def.
You're probably the most moderate guy on the board. Probably moreso than myself.
Am I moderate if I have a balance of fairly extreme positions on both sides? for example I am pro-abortion but also pro-second amendment, I am a free speech absolutist and antitheist to the point of wanting all churches to be taxed as businesses but I am also for aggressive opposition to illegal immigration, I have read and listened to speeches and debates from as disparate individuals as Ron Paul, Ross Perot, Christopher Hitchens. and Slavoj Zizek and found them all to be interesting.
Separate names with a comma.