What are the ideological inconsistencies within the Democratic Party?

[King]

Not sure which is the most ridiculous strawman on this thread.  Probably the notion that liberals are somehow anti-vaccine.  Name one prominent liberal politician who ever was.

Conversely,  it was the 2012 Republican debates in which candidates were still pushing these myths. "Vaccines made this girl retarded!!1" and the like.

There are definitely anti-pharmaceutical skeptics on the left.  Alternative medicine is hugely a green left ideal, even if crazies like Bachmann also subscribe.

[Brittain33]

Not sure which is the most ridiculous strawman on this thread.  Probably the notion that liberals are somehow anti-vaccine.  Name one prominent liberal politician who ever was.

Conversely,  it was the 2012 Republican debates in which candidates were still pushing these myths. "Vaccines made this girl retarded!!1" and the like.

There are definitely anti-pharmaceutical skeptics on the left.  Alternative medicine is hugely a green left ideal, even if crazies like Bachmann also subscribe.

Hmm, yeah. But I would draw a line between relatively harmless beliefs in unproven remedies and opposition to vaccination. The latter just seems more drastic and requires confronting a whole lot of bureaucracy, never mind the risk to the child.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

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.

[King]

Not sure which is the most ridiculous strawman on this thread.  Probably the notion that liberals are somehow anti-vaccine.  Name one prominent liberal politician who ever was.

Conversely,  it was the 2012 Republican debates in which candidates were still pushing these myths. "Vaccines made this girl retarded!!1" and the like.

There are definitely anti-pharmaceutical skeptics on the left.  Alternative medicine is hugely a green left ideal, even if crazies like Bachmann also subscribe.

Hmm, yeah. But I would draw a line between relatively harmless beliefs in unproven remedies and opposition to vaccination. The latter just seems more drastic and requires confronting a whole lot of bureaucracy, never mind the risk to the child.

There's equal risk to the child if you're replacing a doctor's prescription for an illness with green tea extract or whatever.  The thinking is definitely the same.  There's "chemicals" in vaccines and medicine which normal people do not understand, therefore it is poison.

Regardless, there's a lot of unwarranted fear which is entirely on the left that pharmaceutical companies are not looking out for the best interests of the people--that they want to keep people sick.  Really, the financial incentive for curing a disease is just as great as treating it, as reproduction ensures there will always be new people born who do not have a polio vaccination yet.  A cure for cancer can be sold forever.

[Old Man Svensson]

There are plenty, which is why I only identify as a Democrat for the sake of convenience on this forum, but I'd like to draw special attention to the Democrats who went on and on about being anti-war and for civil liberties right up until Obama didn't support such things any more.

[bedstuy]

There are plenty, which is why I only identify as a Democrat for the sake of convenience on this forum, but I'd like to draw special attention to the Democrats who went on and on about being anti-war and for civil liberties right up until Obama didn't support such things any more.

To be fair, the majority of Democrats went right along with Bush on national security and war before the Iraq War turned into a colossal mess.  It is possible to be in favor of executive power and a robust response to terrorist threats, but only when done in an intelligent way. 

Obama and his supporters were never took the Ron Paul/Barbara Lee position on those issues.

[old timey villain]

Liberals in major cities talk a big game about protecting the poor yet they push them out of their own neighborhoods through gentrification.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

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.

The Democratic leadership quite obviously supports policies favoring the rich.

[bedstuy]

Liberals in major cities talk a big game about protecting the poor yet they push them out of their own neighborhoods through gentrification.

That's a vast over-simplification and fundamentally a frivolous point.  Neighborhoods rise in attractiveness and real estate price.  This has always happened and will always happen.  It has nothing to do with white people maliciously pushing people out.  Some poor people benefit from gentrification, some do not.  Some rich people benefit, some do not.

[old timey villain]

Liberals in major cities talk a big game about protecting the poor yet they push them out of their own neighborhoods through gentrification.

That's a vast over-simplification and fundamentally a frivolous point.  Neighborhoods rise in attractiveness and real estate price.  This has always happened and will always happen.  It has nothing to do with white people maliciously pushing people out.  Some poor people benefit from gentrification, some do not.  Some rich people benefit, some do not.

You can blame the free market if you want, but wealthy people who move into those neighborhoods (many of them liberals) are a part of the cycle that pushes poor people out with rising costs of living. I never said they did it maliciously but they don't seem to be upset when the pawn shops are replaced with boutiques. 

[bedstuy]

Liberals in major cities talk a big game about protecting the poor yet they push them out of their own neighborhoods through gentrification.

That's a vast over-simplification and fundamentally a frivolous point.  Neighborhoods rise in attractiveness and real estate price.  This has always happened and will always happen.  It has nothing to do with white people maliciously pushing people out.  Some poor people benefit from gentrification, some do not.  Some rich people benefit, some do not.

You can blame the free market if you want, but wealthy people who move into those neighborhoods (many of them liberals) are a part of the cycle that pushes poor people out with rising costs of living. I never said they did it maliciously but they don't seem to be upset when the pawn shops are replaced with boutiques. 

What's the alternative?  Nobody is allowed to move?  And by the way, poor people who own houses in gentrifying neighborhoods are often the biggest winners. 

[All Along The Watchtower]

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.

Anyway, the Democratic Party's biggest inconsistency is probably being simultaneously a pretty "mainstream", pro-corporate, status-quo, right-wing party in practice by any reasonable standard, and also being the only realistic option in American electoral politics for most of the poor, minorities, and "left-leaning" people.

[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.

[All Along The Watchtower]

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

[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.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Liberals in major cities talk a big game about protecting the poor yet they push them out of their own neighborhoods through gentrification.

That's a vast over-simplification and fundamentally a frivolous point.  Neighborhoods rise in attractiveness and real estate price.  This has always happened and will always happen.  It has nothing to do with white people maliciously pushing people out.  Some poor people benefit from gentrification, some do not.  Some rich people benefit, some do not.

You can blame the free market if you want, but wealthy people who move into those neighborhoods (many of them liberals) are a part of the cycle that pushes poor people out with rising costs of living. I never said they did it maliciously but they don't seem to be upset when the pawn shops are replaced with boutiques. 

What's the alternative?  Nobody is allowed to move?  And by the way, poor people who own houses in gentrifying neighborhoods are often the biggest winners. 

The alternative, of course, is a much higher-rate and more progressive tax system directed largely at the wealthy (who have gotten an incredibly generous deal at the expense of the rest of society, especially in the past 30-40 years) in order to pay for improved public services for the poor and the working class and their neighborhoods.

[All Along The Watchtower]

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.

[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.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

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.

By the way, you're back on ignore.  I am sick and tired of your constant trolling.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

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.

By the way, you're back on ignore.  I am sick and tired of your constant trolling.

But that's all true.  And women voted for Obama because of the success of the (false) "war on women" narrative.

BTW, I just thought of another one: supporting legalizing marijuana while supporting nanny-state restrictions on food/beverage consumption to crack down on obesity.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

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.

By the way, you're back on ignore.  I am sick and tired of your constant trolling.

But that's all true.  And women voted for Obama because of the success of the (false) "war on women" narrative.

Yeah.  Because it's not like, y'know, Republicans said something about rape or anything.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're actually right on that one.

[bedstuy]

Liberals in major cities talk a big game about protecting the poor yet they push them out of their own neighborhoods through gentrification.

That's a vast over-simplification and fundamentally a frivolous point.  Neighborhoods rise in attractiveness and real estate price.  This has always happened and will always happen.  It has nothing to do with white people maliciously pushing people out.  Some poor people benefit from gentrification, some do not.  Some rich people benefit, some do not.

You can blame the free market if you want, but wealthy people who move into those neighborhoods (many of them liberals) are a part of the cycle that pushes poor people out with rising costs of living. I never said they did it maliciously but they don't seem to be upset when the pawn shops are replaced with boutiques. 

What's the alternative?  Nobody is allowed to move?  And by the way, poor people who own houses in gentrifying neighborhoods are often the biggest winners. 

The alternative, of course, is a much higher-rate and more progressive tax system directed largely at the wealthy (who have gotten an incredibly generous deal at the expense of the rest of society, especially in the past 30-40 years) in order to pay for improved public services for the poor and the working class and their neighborhoods.

That would accelerate gentrification, not slow it down.  Just speaking from experience, improving services in poor areas increases rents.  And, it's not the wealthy moving into former slum neighborhoods.  It's young people with jobs displacing young people on public assistance with no ability to pay even 1/4 of the market rate for an apartment.  That's just how it is in my neck of the woods. 

[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.