• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Can we really trust the dems?

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sprsk

force push the doodoo rock
As much as I want to explode in a violent burst of joy and gasm I can't help but think, "These guys are politicians." Are we sure these guys are better than the republicans? For the longest time theyve been going on about how they are different than the republicans, because well, they believe the opposite of the republicans. How much of this was just lip service? Can we trust a party who elects a (I hate to use this but..) flip flopper like john kerry as a presidential canidate? I want to believe, but I'm still uneasy. I guess it's too early to tell now, but I hope the dems act intelligently and rationally about issues and don't just give us what they think we want. I guess my message to the dems is do what is right, not what will get you reelected.

/me goes back under the covers and waits for the skies to clear
 
V

Verano

Reads Ace as Lace. May God have mercy on their soul
sp0rsk said:
Can we trust a party who elects a (I hate to use this but..) flip flopper like john kerry as a presidential canidate?
Click to expand...

Do you think every democrat voted for Kerry's dumbass?
I sure didn't, and the socialists.
Seriously, it's like some democrats will vote for any dem rep. just to win. They don't care how retarded the candidate is, as long as they have person on the spot.
 
V

Verano

Reads Ace as Lace. May God have mercy on their soul
McColinCake said:
Why all the hate for Kerry? I think he would have been a fine president.
Click to expand...

Less retarded than Bush with some intelligence.
 
S

sprsk

force push the doodoo rock
Kerry's problem is that he isn't genuine. He comes off as a guy who will change his opinion just to get some votes. This isn't really about him though. This is about our new democratic majority.
 
S

Stoney Mason

Banned
McColinCake said:
does it really matter?

I mean, we kind of have to hope that they are good. Lesser of two evils.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. Could it be any worse than the last 6 years? Are we going to lie and get ourselves into another dumbass war?
 
N

NWO

Member
sp0rsk said:
Are we sure these guys are better than the republicans?
Click to expand...

Are they for the Patriot Act?
Are they for torturing people?
Are they for phone taps without a warrant?
Are they for oil companies raping the hell out of us?
Are they for sexing up boys on AIM chats?
Are they for Creationism in schools and trying to discredit science with made up shit?
Are they against stem cell research?
Are they for shitting all over the Constitution?

No they aren't so even if they suck ass for the next two years they can never come close to ****ing up like the Republicans have done under Bush.

No President should be able to do whatever the hell they want without the other party watching them and Bush has run free for the past 6 years. That ends and that's good no matter what party you root for. One party running EVERYTHING sucks for the people.
 
J

jgkspsx

Member
No, you can't trust the Dems, but you can distrust them less than the Republicans :)

Divided governments are, in general, more successful than single-party. It's what our system is designed for.
sp0rsk said:
Kerry's problem is that he isn't genuine. He comes off as a guy who will change his opinion just to get some votes. This isn't really about him though. This is about our new democratic majority.
Click to expand...
Only as much as McCain or Bush or anyone.

Kerry wouldn't have been a great president. He would have been in the tradition of Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush: competent, awkward, and uncomfortable presidents. But he would have been a world better than this guy, who's needed the smackdown he got today for a long time.
 
A

APF

Member
sp0rsk said:
Did you read the first post or did you just come flying in on a bald eagle of freedom?
Click to expand...
Do you mean where you [essentially] say, "trust them not to give us what they think we want?" That's barely comprehensible. Dems have their platforms that they have run on. A coherent question would have been, "can we trust them to follow through on their policy proposals?" or, "can we trust them to try and push through planks of their platform?" Instead you say basically nothing, on your dove of enslavery.

Further, I should object to your pining for someone to do your thinking for you--your begging for some sort of holy authority that will know what's best for you.

But perhaps I'm being uncharitable in addressing your question.
 
N

Ned Flanders

Banned
We can trust the Dems not to abandon science in support of superstition and special interests.

We can trust the Dems not to legislate their religious beliefs.

We can trust the Dems not to lead us into global conflict without a broad coalition of support.

We can trust the Dems not to selectively privatize government bureaucracy by way of no-bid contracts.

We can trust the Dems to actually consider respecting the environment.

We can trust the Dems to put us on a path to increasing energy independence.

We can trust the Dems to use the working man and not the shareholder as a barometer of America's economic prosperity.



They can raise taxes, marry the gays, and clone all the stem cells they want, but if we can trust them to do the things above, then we can garauntee that a Democratic congress will leave America a better place than the Republicans gave them.
 
B

Broken Arrow

Member
NWO said:
Are they for the Patriot Act?
Are they for torturing people?
Are they for phone taps without a warrant?
Are they for oil companies raping the hell out of us?
Are they for sexing up boys on AIM chats?
Are they for Creationism in schools and trying to discredit science with made up shit?
Are they against stem cell research?
Are they for shitting all over the Constitution?

No they aren't so even if they suck ass for the next two years they can never come close to ****ing up like the Republicans have done under Bush.

No President should be able to do whatever the hell they want without the other party watching them and Bush has run free for the past 6 years. That ends and that's good no matter what party you root for. One party running EVERYTHING sucks for the people.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more....
 
S

sprsk

force push the doodoo rock
APF said:
Do you mean where you [essentially] say, "trust them not to give us what they think we want?" That's barely comprehensible. Dems have their platforms that they have run on. A coherent question would have been, "can we trust them to follow through on their policy proposals?" or, "can we trust them to try and push through planks of their platform?" Instead you say basically nothing, on your dove of enslavery.

Further, I should object to your pining for someone to do your thinking for you--your begging for some sort of holy authority that will know what's best for you.

But perhaps I'm being uncharitable in addressing your question.
Click to expand...


Ha? Someone had a bad day at the comic book store I see.
 
V

VictimOfGrief

Banned
sp0rsk said:
As much as I want to explode in a violent burst of joy and gasm I can't help but think, "These guys are politicians." Are we sure these guys are better than the republicans? For the longest time theyve been going on about how they are different than the republicans, because well, they believe the opposite of the republicans. How much of this was just lip service? Can we trust a party who elects a (I hate to use this but..) flip flopper like john kerry as a presidential canidate? I want to believe, but I'm still uneasy. I guess it's too early to tell now, but I hope the dems act intelligently and rationally about issues and don't just give us what they think we want. I guess my message to the dems is do what is right, not what will get you reelected.

/me goes back under the covers and waits for the skies to clear
Click to expand...

What's not to trust? You've got nancy pelosi doing the tap dance now to the conservative democratic middle, she basically said "F*** YOU!" to the far left extremists and is now going to put the pressure on as the FIRST woman speaker in congress.

pelosi.jpg

That being said... I think she's still a shill for a non-organized party who is thriving on "changing America" but still doesn't know what the hell to do.

But regardless, most of the changes now in the congress and Rumsfeld leaving office.... Bush (to me now) seems at least to be poised to get shit done since the ultra conservative republicans (yes... F*** them...) are now out of the congress and the democrats are in to actually pass the buck.

It will be interesting but I think trusting them is the only choice ANYONE at this point has.
 
T

Triumph

Banned
You don't trust politicians, on either side of the aisle. That's what got us into this mess- trusting in people to do the right thing and then they basically buggered the Constitution while spending like meth addled rave kids left alone with mom's credit cards.

Frankly, I don't have much use for the Democrats. But I have pretty much NO use for the Republicans. The Dems are better for the simple fact that they won't appoint Alito II: Electric Bugaloo to any juicy judgeships anytime soon.
 
H

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
It's important to note the complete breakdown of policy-making and oversight in the past 6 years. The GOP under Bush, Frist, and DeLay took us to a point that Nixon and Reagan never got remotely close to. Hell, even the GOP congress under Clinton wasn't as bad. Any impression that it's SOP for both parties is false, and we CAN trust dems to restore policy to congress. It's in their interest to do so, since they're pretty weak at toeing a strict party line in the first place. ;)

sp0rsk said:
Kerry's problem is that he isn't genuine. He comes off as a guy who will change his opinion just to get some votes.
Click to expand...
Only because he was never able to actually articulate an overarching philosophy on his own and thus let the GOP run circles around him. He was definitely genuine(I've read up on him), he was just REALLY shitty at showing it. Not that I'm excusing him either, it's not something that should be hard to do, and yet he insisted on dragging everyone through unnecessary details like an idiot savant. He'd have made a fine executive officer, and I respected that, but when it came down to it he was a shitty leader.
 
A

APF

Member
sp0rsk said:
Ha? Someone had a bad day at the comic book store I see.
Click to expand...
I don't get your bolded part, is that supposed to reflect some sort of irony or hypocrisy you see in my post, or do you just think it doesn't adequately reflect your desire to "trust" people to "act rationally" and not "just give us what they think we want" ...?
 
D

dextran

Member
Of course you can't trust them - but that wasn't what the election was about.
It was a protest election - change at any cost.
I'm sure most of the people who voted Democrat would have voted Libertarian, or Green if they felt they could win - and make change.
The number one issue with voters (besides the war) was corruption.
Democrats are not immune to corruption.
 
Phoenix

Phoenix

Member
Ned Flanders said:
We can trust the Dems not to selectively privatize government bureaucracy by way of no-bid contracts.


We can trust the Dems to put us on a path to increasing energy independence.
Click to expand...

These are highly debatable and I, for one, certainly wouldn't bet the farm on those two statements.
 
B

bjork

Member
stonecold.jpg


"DTA, sporks!"

Anyway, they got voted in because the opposition has been sucking pretty badly. I don't think they could really do any worse, but they've got the shot now to see which way they'll steer things. I'm not for either party, because going "we got the house" seems stupider to me than when people go "we won the world series", but I am for someone coming in and doing things to improve the quality of life here.
 
B

Beer Monkey

Member
Trust a divided government that includes dems more than the single-party republican rule of the last few years.

Yeah. You can definitely trust a divided government more than that.

Your post might make sense if we now had dem single-party-rule. Given the current situation, the answer is a no-brainer.
 
M

Mashing

Member
You can't trust any politicians, which is why I don't vote (or complain about our leadership). I figure we're damned if we do, damned if we don't. Why should I waste the effort since politicans are just out there to serve their own agendas.
 
S

Son of Godzilla

Banned
sp0rsk said:
Kerry's problem is that he isn't genuine. He comes off as a guy who will change his opinion just to get some votes. This isn't really about him though. This is about our new democratic majority.
Click to expand...

A politician that reflects the will of the people? Oh my heavens!

I've never understood how "flip-flopping" could ever be construed as a negative quality.
 
F

Fragamemnon

Member
VictimOfGrief said:
But regardless, most of the changes now in the congress and Rumsfeld leaving office.... Bush (to me now) seems at least to be poised to get shit done since the ultra conservative republicans (yes... F*** them...) are now out of the congress and the democrats are in to actually pass the buck.
Click to expand...

From a strategic point of view, the first things that come out of the 110th Congress will likely be middle of the road compromise type things, that is true. But to be honest, that's more commonsense things that were only stalled because of just haw far to the right the GOP House was. Things like minimum wage increases, ethics reform, embryonic stem cell research (hear that fundies? We're going to clone an atheist ARMY!), and a whole host of other stuff that most Americans think should be done will get through. The President may or may not fight them-he and his party are in a very hard place right now.

Under the covers, the progressive wing of the party has more power than ever. Look at the new comittee chairs-seven are them are in the unabashedly liberal Congressional Progressive Caucus. The party's left will likely provide the administration-embarassing, but mostly benign, oversight investigations. Having those comittee chairs puts them in a prime spot to form the legislative sausage to how they see most fit.

The left has more power than they've had in a very long time. While the governance of the Congress will likely be more centrist, those people in control are decidedly to the left.
 
D

Diablos

Member
You seem to be getting the impression that John Kerry would have been corrupt because he's a "flip-flopper", but he was just so bad at defending himself, and not to mention, so late in terms of responding (see: botched joke), that he leaves the impression he has much to hide. The Republicans had the time of their lives backing Kerry into a corner when he didn't even realize half the ****ing time.

All politicians can be corrupt. The question is which party remains the lesser of two evils? It's clearly the Democrats right now. The Republicans have been on a power trip the past six years, and someone needs to calm them down.

I would also add that like Hito said, the amount of corruption within the GOP in the recent past was just insane, absolutely insane. John Kerry might have been a little slow in defending himself, and maybe stubborn, but he's no Tom DeLay.
 
F

FightyF

Banned
I get the impression that these Democrats aren't as extreme as the ousted Republicans. That alone means things will get better.
 
S

SatelliteOfLove

Member
Fragamemnon said:
From a strategic point of view, the first things that come out of the 110th Congress will likely be middle of the road compromise type things, that is true. But to be honest, that's more commonsense things that were only stalled because of just haw far to the right the GOP House was. Things like minimum wage increases, ethics reform, embryonic stem cell research (hear that fundies? We're going to clone an atheist ARMY!), and a whole host of other stuff that most Americans think should be done will get through. The President may or may not fight them-he and his party are in a very hard place right now.

Under the covers, the progressive wing of the party has more power than ever. Look at the new comittee chairs-seven are them are in the unabashedly liberal Congressional Progressive Caucus. The party's left will likely provide the administration-embarassing, but mostly benign, oversight investigations. Having those comittee chairs puts them in a prime spot to form the legislative sausage to how they see most fit.

The left has more power than they've had in a very long time. While the governance of the Congress will likely be more centrist, those people in control are decidedly to the left.
Click to expand...

Especially since the current administration is the lamest lame duck in a long while. Hopefully it won't turn into gettin'-their-licks-in witch hunts and comes to pass into actual pragmatic legislation.
 
F

Fragamemnon

Member
The oversight that the House/Senate comiittees undertake will just try to make sure of two things:

A) All the shit this administration has been sweeping under the rug gets found.
B) All of said shit gets slapped with a GOP nametag.

The overall theme will be to do what Labour has done to the Tories in the UK-tarnish the Republican brand by showing how incredibly incompetent they were at governing.

I don't think you'll see a huge number of criminal investiations or what not. It's time-consuming and counterproductve except in really servere cases where it simply has to be done.
 
H

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
Fragamemnon said:
I don't think you'll see a huge number of criminal investiations or what not. It's time-consuming and counterproductve except in really servere cases where it simply has to be done.
Click to expand...
Why spend a year impeaching Bush when all it gets you is a year of Cheney?
 
R

Ripclawe

Banned
It has begun.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/07/AR2006110701697_pf.html

In private talks before the election, Emanuel and other top Democrats told their members they cannot allow the party's liberal wing to dominate the agenda next year. Democrats will hold 30 or 35 seats that went for Bush in the past, meaning that Democratic candidates such as Brad Ellsworth in rural Indiana are likely to face competitive races again in 2008. Still, their interests are likely to collide with those of veteran liberals such as Reps. Henry A. Waxman (Calif.) and John Conyers Jr., (Mich.), who will chair committees.

With that in mind, there is a chance the 110th Congress could begin on a bipartisan note. Democrats have vowed to move quickly to tighten ethics laws and require offsets for new spending — two plans many Republicans will probably support in light of yesterday's results. Democrats also plan to push next year to raise the minimum wage, increase spending for cargo inspection at ports and reduce rates on student loans, all issues likely to draw some GOP support.

Partisan standoffs are likely over the war and any Democratic efforts to repeal Bush's tax cuts for upper-income America. In both cases, Democratic divisions could complicate Pelosi's plans. Democrats largely avoided detailed positions on a new Iraq strategy, but votes over spending for the military and the Iraq operation will force them to take a position.
Click to expand...
 
A

APF

Member
Fight for Freeform said:
I get the impression that these Democrats aren't as extreme as the ousted Republicans. That alone means things will get better.
Click to expand...
Most of the Rep seats that were lost tended to be moderate or liberal Republicans, and many of the Dems who won were moderate or conservative Democrats.
 
D

Dan

No longer boycotting the Wolfenstein franchise
Anyone expecting/fearing a hardcore liberal agenda is out of their mind. Now, if the Democrats had both houses and the presidency, maybe there would be something to that, but with just Congress, it's going to be a lot of stuff that the majority of the country can agree on. If the Democrats went crazy, they'd lose big in '08.
 
I

Incognito

Troll
sp0rsk said:
As much as I want to explode in a violent burst of joy and gasm I can't help but think, "These guys are politicians." Are we sure these guys are better than the republicans? For the longest time theyve been going on about how they are different than the republicans, because well, they believe the opposite of the republicans. How much of this was just lip service? Can we trust a party who elects a (I hate to use this but..) flip flopper like john kerry as a presidential canidate? I want to believe, but I'm still uneasy. I guess it's too early to tell now, but I hope the dems act intelligently and rationally about issues and don't just give us what they think we want. I guess my message to the dems is do what is right, not what will get you reelected.

/me goes back under the covers and waits for the skies to clear
Click to expand...

concern troll shticks are by far the most annoying species of board personalities

this thread needs to be shitbinned.
 
U

Umino

Because certain people need something to talk about.
They'll always be swindlers. Anyone in office since Martin Van Buren has had to be an exquisite liar so as to convince ovr 50% of a group of people that he or she is not as power hungry or corrupt as the other guys. In reality it's just whoever is a better liar and for two years it's the dems.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

[Jez Corden] OPINION: This week's big Xbox drama showcases how little people trust Nadella's Microsoft — a legacy forged in the death of Windows Phone
2 3 4
164
14K
Rosoboy19 replied
Are We Dating the Same Guy?
2 3
149
12K
Days like these... replied
  • Poll
Et tu, Brute?
Poll 2
51
3K
TrueLegend replied
Can "The Last of Us" break the curse of bad video game adaptations? [New Yorker]
2 3
142
8K
deriks replied
3rd Person Action Lovers - We eatin' gooood >>
2
63
4K
Astral Dog replied
Top Bottom