Forums | MacLife

Yes, of course.  Think the Clinton years.  To the diehard donkeys, he could do no wrong.  And vice versa.

In countries with Major Parties (tm), usually neither of the major parties really has any principles that truly stand out.  That's how they become Major (e.g., witness the Conservatives in Canada... if nothing else, you could say that the old Reform party did stand out - the current bunch, to obtain power, basically became a slightly-cleaner, slightly-Righter version Liberals).

Major Parties, to survive, pander to the mushy middle of the masses.

bratboy wrote:

Hank Rearden wrote:

In countries with Major Parties (tm), usually neither of the major parties really has any principles that truly stand out.  That's how they become Major (e.g., witness the Conservatives in Canada... if nothing else, you could say that the old Reform party did stand out - the current bunch, to obtain power, basically became a slightly-cleaner, slightly-Righter version Liberals).

Major Parties, to survive, pander to the mushy middle of the masses.

I always get in trouble for pointing this out....

I would dispute that.
The democrats have been pretty consistent with good environmental efforts, when they are in power they practice fiscal responsibility. They generally don't go on moral crusades. Democrats do not have a history of subverting, and politicizing science in government and tend to but actual experts in charge of technical positions instead of political place holders or ideologues from right wing diploma mills.
While one can justifiably call the dems weak on protecting our freedoms their weakness is contrasted with the republican full on, brutal assault on the constitution and freedom in general.
The dems can be damned for failing to stop the Republicans but the blame for initiating the worst crimes against the citizenry lay on republican shoulders. Failing to prevent the other guys from doing their crimes is the worst thing the dems have done.

StaticAge wrote:

Forget failing to prevent- how about enabling some of the worst crimes against citizenry?

I think you could even go as far as active participation.

Funny how the slant is always the dems are somehow worse because sometimes they go along with things the republicans initiate.
Have we just accepted that the repubs are the criminals and the dems, like cops, are at fault if the criminals succeed?

....so what happened to bedstuy?

Ribtorus wrote:

Pariah wrote:

Funny how the slant is always the dems are somehow worse because sometimes they go along with things the republicans initiate.
Have we just accepted that the repubs are the criminals and the dems, like cops, are at fault if the criminals succeed?

If you hold them to a higher standard, then I suppose they are worse if they don't reverse the excesses of the previous 8 years.

I don't have a great deal of hope when the Dems win, except for the fairly obvious point that they could hardly do worse than Bush.
The Dems have skewed too far to the right and too far under corporate influence to offer any real change in things back to government being for the people instead of narrow, special, mostly corporate interests.
But they aren't the "free market" anarchists the republicans are so thats hope in small portion.

Pariah wrote:

Funny how the slant is always the dems are somehow worse because sometimes they go along with things the republicans initiate.
Have we just accepted that the repubs are the criminals and the dems, like cops, are at fault if the criminals succeed?

Who said anything about being worse? Everyone was talking about rhetoric swapping, as in equal, then you claimed the Dems were not responsible for the current political state, some people protest that assertion, and thats it.

I think rhetoric in the mainstream will swap, but not here on MAF, mostly.

Hank Rearden wrote:

Pariah wrote:

I don't have a great deal of hope when the Dems win, except for the fairly obvious point that they could hardly do worse than Bush.

That's a ringing endorsement, considering that a baboon could hardly do worse than Bush.

A baboon as president certainly wouldn't be any worse than Bush. Several of the Republican candidates running for president probably would be.

American politics isn't exactly a ray of hope and sunshine. Things staying the same is better than them getting a lot worse, and if you think things can't get any worse, you're deluding yourself.

Jaligard wrote:

Democrats don't band together and amplify messages the way Republicans do.

Clinton was often at odds with the Democrats in Congress. It wasn't until the Republicans began impeachment proceedings that the Democrats rallied behind their guy.

Yeah, that right there is one of the better things about Dems. They don't march in Leninist lockstep like the Reps do.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Will the two sides swap?

Wives maybe.

I think we will all be blinded by the collective rays of sunshine shining out of all of the Democrat arses.