What are the ideological inconsistencies within the Democratic Party?

[barfbag]

Where the hell do I start? How about with abortion when Democrats say minors should be allowed to have abortions because they're young adults, but when a complication comes from the abortion, then all of a sudden the girl becomes the parents' child and responsibility. Obama said that Bush's debt was unpatriotic and then spent more than all other presidents combined. They claim to want peace, but won't do anything to stop that which threatens peace. RFK Jr. preaches environmentalism and energy conservation but flies around in a helicopter polluting our environment. Then there's Ozone Al whose electric bill is well into the thousands. Their party preaches tolerance but won't tolerate anything conservative. Sure they'll tolerate gays like they tolerate a crying baby on an airplane but refuse to tolerate Christianity. A lot of Democrats want to ban cigarettes in every single restaurant, bar, park, on the streets, and everywhere, but advocate the legalization of marijuana. What about Bush's judicial nominees? They filibustered them one by one but want to remove the filibuster now that it's their party nominating the federal judges.

[barfbag]

Protectionist on importation of goods but not of people

Fair enough, but the mainstream of the Democratic party is pro-free trade and Democratic protectionist elements tend to be more anti-immigration than the rest of the party.

Complain about "Wall Street" but more supportive of bailing out banks, other failing companies than Republicans

All sane people supported some form of a bank bailout.  There were no other realistic options.

But, I think your general points are correct. 

-Liberals tend to scapegoat corporations and valorize minorities.  Yet, white, upper-middle class liberals don't actually love minorities in practice and they worship at the altar of socially acceptable corporations like Apple and Whole Foods.
-For certain people, environmentalism is a superstitious cult.  Vegans are worse than Southern Baptists are far as I'm concerned.   

That's not true. Whole Foods is a terrible right wing Randian corporation. In 2009 liberal groups were holding not only boycotts but pickets of it over the CEO's anti-Obamacare efforts.

I remember that. Whole Foods is liberal though.

[barfbag]

Then there's the claim that Democrats claim to support civil rights, but they had a Klansman as their most tenured senator. Robert Byrd also filibustered the Civil Rights Amendment for 14 hours. He was also a grand dragon. Another inconsistency is that Democrats act like they care more about women than Republicans do, but when it actually comes to the issues Democrats make and break promises while the Republicans actually listen to what women have to say. Women don't like it when promises to them are broken.

[barfbag]

3. Accuse Republicans of being the "party of the rich" despite having the support of most of America's wealthiest executives and businessmen (includign George Soros, Warren Buffett, and Ted Turner)

Your list is filled with misunderstandings and factual inaccuracies, but I thought I'd take a hit at this one in particular.

This is a strawman argument.  The Democrats don't hate the rich, just policies favoring the rich, and even then it's debatable whether most Democratic leaders actually feel that way due to their support of certain corporatist policies.  The Democratic Party is not the "opebo Party," contrary to what you'd like to think we are.

Additionally, the esteemed Oldiesfreak picked three Democratic-supporting executives to support his argument despite the fact that most of America's wealthiest executives are either strongly Republican or "hedge their bets" by donating to both parties.

The wealthiest executives don't care as much whose in office because they'll be rich no matter what. Wealthier people vote Republican because they know what it takes to get to the top and have been there before. People like Warren Buffet know how dangerous Obama is for the economy and doesn't want anyone catching up to him.

[barfbag]

Then there's the claim that Democrats claim to support civil rights, but they had a Klansman as their most tenured senator. Robert Byrd also filibustered the Civil Rights Amendment for 14 hours. He was also a grand dragon. Another inconsistency is that Democrats act like they care more about women than Republicans do, but when it actually comes to the issues Democrats make and break promises while the Republicans actually listen to what women have to say. Women don't like it when promises to them are broken.

u be trolling like Oldiesfreak dawg

Please explain to me in depth detail what part of my statement was false. Thank you.

[barfbag]

3. Accuse Republicans of being the "party of the rich" despite having the support of most of America's wealthiest executives and businessmen (includign George Soros, Warren Buffett, and Ted Turner)

Your list is filled with misunderstandings and factual inaccuracies, but I thought I'd take a hit at this one in particular.

This is a strawman argument.  The Democrats don't hate the rich, just policies favoring the rich, and even then it's debatable whether most Democratic leaders actually feel that way due to their support of certain corporatist policies.  The Democratic Party is not the "opebo Party," contrary to what you'd like to think we are.

Additionally, the esteemed Oldiesfreak picked three Democratic-supporting executives to support his argument despite the fact that most of America's wealthiest executives are either strongly Republican or "hedge their bets" by donating to both parties.

The wealthiest executives don't care as much whose in office because they'll be rich no matter what. Wealthier people vote Republican because they know what it takes to get to the top and have been there before. People like Warren Buffet know how dangerous Obama is for the economy and doesn't want anyone catching up to him.

First, Warren Buffett is not a Republican.

You're absolutely right, though, that wealthy people know what it takes to get to "the top"-ruthlessness, lack of social conscience, ambition, ego, and a hefty dose of contempt for the have nots. There's a reason why sociopaths and narcissists are disproportionately represented in the upper echelons of Corporate America.

Yes I know Warren Buffet isn't a Republican which is why I said he supports Obama. He knows that if Obama is in office, then there will be less of a chance at others catching up to him. I didn't know it took contempt to get to the top but the other qualities sound very good to me. I know nothing of sociopaths and narcissists being represented in corporate America, but it sounds like something the Democrats would talk about.

[barfbag]

Then there's the claim that Democrats claim to support civil rights, but they had a Klansman as their most tenured senator. Robert Byrd also filibustered the Civil Rights Amendment for 14 hours. He was also a grand dragon.

No one other than you and Oldiesfreak vote on what a party supported or opposed half a century ago.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Right, which is why women voted 55-44% for Obama in the last election.
O
By the way, you're back on ignore.  I am sick and tired of your constant trolling.

Oh yea? Here's another one. How about the fact that Democrats want to restrict our diets as far as transfats yet want to legalize marijuana. I guess it's all about health isn't it?

[barfbag]

Then there's the claim that Democrats claim to support civil rights, but they had a Klansman as their most tenured senator. Robert Byrd also filibustered the Civil Rights Amendment for 14 hours. He was also a grand dragon. Another inconsistency is that Democrats act like they care more about women than Republicans do, but when it actually comes to the issues Democrats make and break promises while the Republicans actually listen to what women have to say. Women don't like it when promises to them are broken.

u be trolling like Oldiesfreak dawg

You must love Klansmen like Byrd.

[barfbag]

They're supposedly against wiretapping and spy programs but support V chips being implanted in everyone.

[barfbag]

They're supposedly against wiretapping and spy programs but support V chips being implanted in everyone.

You need to tone it down a notch to be an effective troll. Right now it's obvious and thus not entertaining.

Your little piggies are very cute.

[barfbag]

One thing I find ironic is that liberals support affordable housing, though neighborhoods dominated by liberals tend to be quite expensive.

I presume you mean the whites ones? I'm always amazed at how cheap black neighbourhoods are.

Yes, since blacks are conservative on some issues. I wonder if black neighborhoods that vote pro-gay are more expensive.

What if there was a study to find out the average cost of living in black neighborhoods where the majority of residents support gay marriage? That's very specific. Does it really matter what the cost of living is in black neighborhoods where the majority of residents support gay marriage? It sounds nitty gritty but also interesting.

[barfbag]

They're supposedly against wiretapping and spy programs but support V chips being implanted in everyone.

What the heck is a "V chip"?

Chips inserted into babies at birth so the government knows where we're at at all times.

[barfbag]

Bush: Goes to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, uses drone strikes

Reaction from liberals: Riots in the streets of major cities, calls for his impeachment, bush=war criminal, bush is an evil murdering maniac

Obama: Continues war in Afghanistan, escalates drone strikes, starts war in Libya, kills more civilians than bush did

You are being extremely disingenuous or ignorant.

Liberals are not the same as anarchists or leftists.  The people who said Bush was a war criminal and vociferously opposed Bush administration on its War on Terror policies were not mainstream liberals.  Dennis Kucinich and Barbara Lee are not the leadership of the Democratic Party.  Dennis Kucincih types certainly attacked Bush and made some intemperate and dumb statements in my opinion.  But, those same left-wing people have actually been very hard on President Obama on the same issues. 

On the other hand, liberals have generally supported both administrations, except for when the Iraq War became an unmitigated disaster.  John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle, Harry Reid were not in the streets throwing Molotov cocktails.  Also, there were no riots in the streets of major cities in opposition to Bush's foreign policy.  There were a few milquetoast peaceful protests by hippies and assorted misfits and ragamuffins.  Get your facts straight.

You're also ignoring the fact that Obama ended the War in Iraq and is winding down the War in Afghanistan.  I agree too slowly on both counts, but John McCain was arguing we should stay in Iraq indefinitely back in 2008.  So, Obama did a decent job considering that he's a mainstream US politician.

Also, Obama didn't really start the Civil War in Libya, did he now?  On top of that, there was fairly limited US involvement.  To compare the intervention in Libya to Iraq is laughable.  We're talking about over 3,500 US troop fatalities versus 0 US troop fatalities.

And, by what measure has President Obama killed more civilians than President Bush?  The Iraq War outpaces drone strikes by orders of magnitude in terms of civilian casualties. 

You're also ignoring the real ways President Obama has reeled in the torture, saber rattling and scare tactics used by the Bush administration.

I think that first bolded statement pretty much sums up everything wrong with American liberalism. The fact that liberals went along with and in many ways made possible really terrible post-9/11 policies like the PATRIOT Act, like the Iraq War, etc. pretty much undermines the entire credibility of American liberalism when it seeks to distance itself from those same policies. American liberals marched in lockstep with Bush/Cheney in the immediate aftermath of September 11th, and while a bit of that is understandable given the political climate, the fact that this continued in spite of widespread evidence that Bush and his criminal administration was lying the nation into a completely pointless war in Iraq is pretty disgusting.

Obama actually campaigned on expanding and then actually did expand the War in Afghanistan. Winding down the war as he has has largely been the result of pushback in Congress, not Obama's own initiative in that regard. And the John McCain line was clearly one taken out of context, as he was referring to America's seemingly indefinite occupations of South Korea, Japan, Germany, etc. That's partisan nonsense to claim it was otherwise. Lest we also forget that Obama only left Iraq because the Iraqis literally kicked the United States out.

What exactly was the point of American intervention in Libya, though? Obviously in retrospect it worked out, but that wasn't clear going into the conflict. Aside from that, the money spent on dropping bombs on Libya would probably have been better spent on rebuilding American infrastructure, employing people, etc.

Obama has done next to nothing to 'reel in torture'. His promise to close down Guantanamo Bay was broken literally a week into his administration. If anything he has upped the ante in the saber-rattling with Iran and North Korea so as not to appear 'weak' to his Republican opponents.

Just not true.  There was an initial troop increase to attempt to restore a semblance of order in Afghanistan, with an explicit plan to withdraw troops afterwards.  Since then, the policy has been dictated by President Obama, senior White House officials and the military's top brass.  Congress doesn't even have a unified position to push on the President.  I personally disagree with President Obama's slow withdrawal from Afghanistan.  But, it's just untrue to claim we would be at 2009 troop levels, but for the leadership of Congress.   

The 100 years comment is not what I'm referring to.  John McCain's policy in 2008 was to maintain US troop levels in Iraq.  Obama's policy was to start a withdrawal of US troops in 2009.

On Libya, the purpose of the NATO action was humanitarian intervention.  And I would argue that the reason it didn't become a trillion dollar, bloody quagmire wasn't just luck.  It was the policy and leadership of the White House in creating a specific limited mission and executing it.  This is in distinction to the Bush War in Iraq which was characterized by poor planning, a vague mission and shoddy leadership. 

On torture, Obama made it explicit US policy not to torture and revoked the legal cover provided by the Bush Justice Department.  On the general climate of fear, it has changed.  The Bush administration constantly used 9/11 as a political tactic and suggested Democrats were unpatriotic.  The Obama administration is far less Machiavellian in that regard.

So Democrats are good and Republicans are bad? I think your post is entirely partisan. Do you think there is the slightest chance that Democrats may not be perfect?