Pence

[AC_Exotic]

Pence scares the bejeezus out of me. A social conservative. Yuck. To Trump's credit, it was a great poison pill pick. Just imagine what Pence and Sessions could accomplish together.

The fact that this statement hasn't been debated scares the bejesus out of me. Especially in light of the the fact that so many religious people have served honorably in government in our history.

Are you saying that you're only opposed to Christian previous people serving in office or all religious people? Very scary implications either way.

Evangelicals made a horrific mistake when they decided to get in bed with the GOP in 1980. Both parties have gotten worse because of it.

 

[JohnVoight]

I'm saying I disagree with the social conservative platform. I'm saying I want the government out of bedrooms (and many other things). I'm pro-choice, pro-legalization, and pro-gay rights. Pretty sure Pence is opposed to all of those 3 things. Of course a religious person can serve honorably in government. By the same token, a religious politician like Pence is a dinosaur of a bygone era. Trump needed him to sew up the Evangelical SoCon vote, and I suppose as a counter-balance to Trump's personality. To me, that's about the extent of his usefulness.

 

[07pilt]

I agree 100%. I don't think impeachment of Trump for actual crimes will hurt the Democrats. The constant braying without actual substance might though. It did in the 2016 election.

The formula is braying for midterms, politics for presidential elections.

 

[AC_Exotic]

I'm saying I disagree with the social conservative platform. I'm saying I want the government out of bedrooms (and many other things). I'm pro-life, pro-legalization, and pro-gay rights. Pretty sure Pence is opposed to all of those 3 things. Of course a religious person can serve honorably in government. By the same token, a religious politician like Pence is a dinosaur of a bygone ear. Trump needed him to sew up the Evangelical SoCon vote, and I suppose as a counter-balance to Trump's personality. To me, that's about the extent of his usefulness.

Pence isn't pro-life?

So if a person doesn't match up with every little point on your check list, they scare the beejezus out of you?

Reagan had a good rule: If they match up with about 60% of your beliefs, you should be happy to vote for them.

If Pence is in fact a dinosaur in America -- we're headed to some pretty bleak places that scare the beejezus out of me.

 

[GL97]

after 8 years of running the country. you think dems will be running on an economic platform in 2018 because they lost their voice?

Last time I checked, the economy is doing pretty good. It sure is a lot better than it was in 2009.

Still, there are many Americans who have not experienced the benefits of the economic recovery. Democrats failed to account for those Americans in 2016. Trump was able to sell many of them a false bill of goods with his faux populist message. Democrats need to speak to them again in 2018 and 2020.

It shouldn't be hard since Trump has yet to do anything to improve their situation. Nor will he.

you think dems will be running on an economic platform in 2018 because they lost their voice.

If they are smart, that will be part of their message.

what sort of domestic voice did dems loose?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...cffa8e9b69b6085905df5/?utm_term=.a8ec01e8d87e

 

[JohnVoight]

Pro-choice I meant. Sorry, multitasking isn't my strong suit.

Nobody has to hit every little point on my checklist, and I'm not a single issue voter. I'm just vehemently opposed to the social conservative movement. The left already won that culture war, it holds the right back IMO. If the GOP was smart, now that the left is done with gays, it would win back some of those votes. Kind of hard to do with Pence as the leader of the party (if that scenario occurs).

 

[GL97]

Nobody has to hit every little point on my checklist, and I'm not a single issue voter. I'm just vehemently opposed to the social conservative movement. The left already won that culture war, it holds the right back IMO.

One could also argue though that the Democratic Party's position on abortion holds it back with a number of voters. I know many people who have told me they would vote for Democrats if the Party wasn't so pro-choice. Many pro-life Democrats make the argument that the Democratic Party could have more success in red state congressional elections if they would be willing to embrace more pro-life Democrats.

There use to be more high profile Democrats who were pro-life. That isn't really the case anymore though.

 

[CBradSmith]

Pence isn't pro-life?

So if a person doesn't match up with every little point on your check list, they scare the beejezus out of you?

Reagan had a good rule: If they match up with about 60% of your beliefs, you should be happy to vote for them.

If Pence is in fact a dinosaur in America -- we're headed to some pretty bleak places that scare the beejezus out of me.

People who use the word "scare" need to grow TFU.

Single issue voters/non-voters do as well. Assuming there's more than a single issue differentiating choice.

 

[CBradSmith]

One could also argue though that the Democratic Party's position on abortion holds it back with a number of voters. I know many people who have told me they would vote for Democrats if the Party wasn't so pro-choice. Many pro-life Democrats make the argument that the Democratic Party could have more success in red state congressional elections if they would be willing to embrace more pro-life Democrats.

There use to be more high profile Democrats who were pro-life. That isn't really the case anymore though.

This is accurate.

In its current form, the demoncratic party is hostile to anybody holding a pro-life position.

Same with wholesale buy-in on the effects of man on climate change.

GL, if you can polish up those 2 areas, the democratic party would be much more palatable.

 

[AC_Exotic]

One could also argue though that the Democratic Party's position on abortion holds it back with a number of voters. I know many people who have told me they would vote for Democrats if the Party wasn't so pro-choice. Many pro-life Democrats make the argument that the Democratic Party could have more success in red state congressional elections if they would be willing to embrace more pro-life Democrats.

There use to be more high profile Democrats who were pro-life. That isn't really the case anymore though.

Correct exactly.

This is part of the reason the Evangelical/GOP marriage in 1980 was unhealthy for both parties.

 

[GL97]

. GL, if you can polish up those 2 areas, the democratic party would be much more palatable.

Sorry I can't agree with you regarding climate change, but abortion is definitely a wedge issue. There are many people who are single issue voters when it comes to abortion. On both sides.

The problem is that the interest groups on both sides of the abortion debate have become so ingrained in both political parties that there doesn't seem to be much room for any alternative view. There are Democrat groups that work to broaden the Party's reach on this issue, but they really aren't having that much success.

Another problem with abortion is that both sides are so convinced they are right. One side thinks they have a God-given mandate and the other side thinks they must protect individual liberty. There isn't much discussion and understanding.

 

[N. Pappagiorgio]

Sorry I can't agree with you regarding climate change, but abortion is definitely a wedge issue. There are many people who are single issue voters when it comes to abortion. On both sides.

The problem is that the interest groups on both sides of the abortion debate have become so ingrained in both political parties that there doesn't seem to be much room for any alternative view. There are Democrat groups that work to broaden the Party's reach on this issue, but they really aren't having that much success.

Another problem with abortion is that both sides are so convinced they are right. One side thinks they have a God-given mandate and the other side thinks they must protect individual liberty. There isn't much discussion and understanding.

How come you stopped using lol in most of your posts?

 

[GL97]

How come you stopped using lol in most of your posts?

I haven't seen much to lol about today.

 

[CBradSmith]

Sorry I can't agree with you regarding climate change, but abortion is definitely a wedge issue.

You can disagree, but you'd be factually inaccurate.

Proceed.

 

[GL97]

You can disagree, but you'd be factually inaccurate.

To borrow from syskatine (and Trump)...

 

[CBradSmith]

To borrow from syskatine (and Trump)...

Your introspection only goes so far.

 

[GL97]

Your introspection only goes so far.

How many single issue voters do you know that only vote against Democrats because of their position on climate change?

I've never met any.

 

[CBradSmith]

How many single issue voters do you know that only vote against Democrats because of their position on climate change?

I've never met any.

Oh, so this is about power and not edifying a party to be more representative or open to dialogue.

My mistake.

Proceed with your preaching.

 

[GL97]

Oh, so this is about power and not edifying a party to be more representative or open to dialogue.

I was just discussing an issue that some argue limits the electoral success of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. I don't believe climate change is in the same boat as abortion is regards to this.

If electoral success is about power, so be it.

 

[CBradSmith]

Politics is power, isn't it?

I mean if you want to have some utopian discussion about how things should be in a perfect world, go right ahead. We don't live in a perfect world though.

Governance, in this country at least, is mostly assumed to be representative. You've spoken in other threads about "listening to the voices that Trump successfully spoke to" in getting elected.

What exactly do you think the point of government is?

The impression I'm drawing from you is that representation of public will is secondary to whatever you or the party want/dictate.

Your platitudes regarding "listening" are just hot air.

If that's the case, then you can go **** yourself, and I've identified you as another person I have zero in common with. Much like Hitler, Qaddafi, Hussein, Jong-Il, Mao, Stalin, Mugabe, Lenin, Pol Pot......

 

[07pilt]

All Democrats need to do to get a bunch of Republicans to vote for them is to become indistinguishable from Republicans.

 

[07pilt]

Governance, in this country at least, is mostly assumed to be representative. You've spoken in other threads about "listening to the voices that Trump successfully spoke to" in getting elected.

What exactly do you think the point of government is?

The impression I'm drawing from you is that representation of public will is secondary to whatever you or the party want/dictate.

Your platitudes regarding "listening" are just hot air.

If that's the case, then you can go **** yourself, and I've identified you as another person I have zero in common with. Much like Hitler, Qaddafi, Hussein, Jong-Il, Mao, Stalin, Mugabe, Lenin, Pol Pot......

What a drama queen. Frothy much?

 

[CBradSmith]

I was just discussing an issue that some argue limits the electoral success of the Democratic Party (and the Republican Party). I don't believe climate change is in the same boat as abortion is regarding this.

If electoral success is about power, so be it.

Btw, thanks for showing me that about yourself.

When revelations such as these mostly go away, and more reasonable thinking prevails from the left (representative governance and not a culling of those who dont walk in goosestep with you), I'll revisit whether your party is worth a shit.

 

[CBradSmith]

Frothy much?

In the appropriate situation I'll use more lively language.

I can see where you might make the mistake of not discerning appropriately between frothy and calculating.

 

[CBradSmith]

All Democrats need to do to get a bunch of Republicans to vote for them is to become indistinguishable from Republicans.

What kinda mumbo jumbo is this?

Gutter talk.

 

[AC_Exotic]

All Democrats need to do to get a bunch of Republicans to vote for them is to become indistinguishable from Republicans.

There's not a huge difference right now from my perspective.

 

[07pilt]

What kinda mumbo jumbo is this?

Gutter talk.

Oh sorry I meant "if they become more centrist and adopt my preferred positions on climate change and abortion"

 

[GL97]

Well first, I edited my post CBrad because I didn't feel like I accurately expressed what I was trying to convey. With that said...

What exactly do you think the point of government is?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

The impression I'm drawing from you is that representation of public will is secondary to whatever you or the party want/dictate.

Not at all.

In a representative democracy, the representation of the public will is very important. That is why we have elections. That is why, btw, I believe all of our representatives (including the President) should be elected by the people and not a system.that takes power from the people.

 

[07pilt]

There's not a huge difference right now from my perspective.

and yet here we are.

 

[CBradSmith]

Oh sorry I meant "if they become more centrist and adopt my preferred positions on climate change and abortion"

Not being outright hostile would be a first step.

Who in the hell are you quoting?

 

[07pilt]

Not being outright hostile would be a first step.

Who in the hell are you quoting?

Myself, put that quote in as a replacement for "become indistinguishable from Republicans."

 

[CBradSmith]

Well first, I edited my post CBrad

Yeah, the optics on that were bad, weren't they? A momentary peering into your soul.

Changing words after the fact, lovely, and completely above board.

Here is what you said. Not a thing like your editted version.

Politics is power, isn't it?

I mean if you want to have some utopian discussion about how things should be in a perfect world, go right ahead. We don't live in a perfect world though.

 

[aix_xpert]

There is so much wrong with this analysis, is hard to figure out where to begin.

Suffice to say, if it is proven that Trump broke the law, impeachment isn't going to hurt the Democrats. Sure, hardcore Trump supporters will get upset, but right now, Trump's base of support isn't that strong. Moderates and centrists are not going to flee if Trump is being held accountable for breaking the law.

You are missing the point. Impeachment proceedings even if warranted will lead to the stock market stalling. This all goes back to the old saying: "Its the economy stupid". Obama became loved because like it or not, the market went up under his watch. Bush wasn't liked because the market cratered under his watch. But Trump has the market doing well (whether or not its his policies or residue from Obama isn't relevant), its called the Trump market. Impeaching him will stall the market, and if it drops 10-15 percent (what most analysts predict the next correction will amount to), you can't tell me that the impact of that crash won't be put squarely at the feet of the Dems. And the non-SJW Dem is not going to be happy about those losses.

 

[GL97]

and more reasonable thinking prevails from the left (representative governance and not a culling of those who dont walk in goosestep with you), I'll revisit whether your party is worth a shit.

And you really think that a culling of those who don't walk in goosestep doesn't occur on the right? Come on man.

 

[AC_Exotic]

and yet here we are.

Dramatic hyper-hysterical reactions to every event or decision from blue team to red team's decisions (or red team to blue team's decisions) made the slide to where we are much easier.

We live in an age where the only acceptable discourse is: "ALL CAPS OUTRAGE!"

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

Dramatic hyper-hysterical reactions to every event or decision from blue team to red team's decisions (or red team to blue team's decisions) made the slide to where we are much easier.

We live in an age where the only acceptable discourse is: "ALL CAPS OUTRAGE!"

THAT'S NOT TRUE!

 

[CBradSmith]

THAT'S NOT TRUE!

Awesome!

 

[GL97]

Here is what you said. Not a thing like your editted version.

Electoral success results in political power which allows the will of the people to be expressed (ideally). This is what I was trying to convey but I did a lousy job expressing it with my first post.

Having electoral success is the goal of any political party.

 

[CowboyJD]

And you really think that a culling of those who don't walk in goosestep doesn't occur on the right? Come on man.

Also whataboutism.

 

[07pilt]

You are missing the point. Impeachment proceedings even if warranted will lead to the stock market stalling. This all goes back to the old saying: "Its the economy stupid". Obama became loved because like it or not, the market went up under his watch. Bush wasn't liked because the market cratered under his watch. But Trump has the market doing well (whether or not its his policies or residue from Obama isn't relevant), its called the Trump market. Impeaching him will stall the market, and if it drops 10-15 percent (what most analysts predict the next correction will amount to), you can't tell me that the impact of that crash won't be put squarely at the feet of the Dems. And the non-SJW Dem is not going to be happy about those losses.

Firstly, non of this can happen without the complicity of a significant portion of republicans. Second, why do you think the Dems will get blamed rather than the blame falling along the same partisan lines they always do?