Why Do Democrats Insist on Playing Group Politics?

Originally posted by mental modulator
Hey my cut in paste job was making it easy on JAMIE

He make specific claims so I made it very easy for he/she to
point out the words she/he used in his OP.

Hasn't done it yet....

Posting Obama's complete platform is evading the question, which is a legitimate question. There is a difference in the way Dems and Republicans approach politics. Dems tend to isolate issues around groups.

This is why I used the example of Nancy Pelosi pushing the resolution about the Armenian genocide that took place in 1923. This is the first example that came to mind that really exemplifies the way Dems tend to approach politics.

Rather than post Obama's entire platform, why not try offering an intelligent observation.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

History shows that there are "groups" of people that are not receiving equal treatment. Women do not receive equal pay. Someone needs to do something about it. Gay people are not permitted to get married. Someone should help to change that. Black people are disproportionately imprisoned. That needs to be rectified.

Thank you so much for actually providing a reasonable answer to the question! Seriously, I appreciate and respect your point of view.

I understand 100% now where you, and the Dems, are coming from.

Republicans hate when someone says that the country isn't what it could be or isn't what it should be, because they think it is! They think everything is just dandy! And anyone who wants a better America is just anti-American. Unfortunately, they cannot see the country through the eyes of these "groups" and think everything is all right the way it is.

No, I think you are making an incorrect blanket statement about Republicans. If you can look at this with an open mind and objectively, you will see what I'm talking about.

Republicans (not all Republicans!) see the same issues you pointed out, and yet they feel it is better to err on the side of less government intervention to solve these problems.

They also feel the approach government should take take individuals to task who violate the laws rather than attempt to change society to what bureaucrats think society should be.

A perfect example is gun control. Republicans feel law abiding citizens should have guns, and if somebody commits a crime with a gun, they should be punished severely.

As for group politics, Republicans feel that laws and regulations should apply to everybody, and not be directed towards groups.

For example, Republicans feel that it is plain wrong to add points to LSAT test scores for black college applicants just because their skin is black.

Republicans feel that it's the government's role to build the playing field and let the people play on it. If one group or the other starts winning the game, the Republicans feel that it's not the government's role to change the rules to make the score closer.

Originally posted by jamie83

No, I think you are making an incorrect blanket statement about Republicans. If you can look at this with an open mind and objectively, you will see what I'm talking about.

Republicans (not all Republicans!) see the same issues you pointed out, and yet they feel it is better to err on the side of less government intervention to solve these problems.

They also feel the approach government should take take individuals to task who violate the laws rather than attempt to change society to what bureaucrats think society should be.

A perfect example is gun control. Republicans feel law abiding citizens should have guns, and if somebody commits a crime with a gun, they should be punished severely.

As for group politics, Republicans feel that laws and regulations should apply to everybody, and not be directed towards groups.

For example, Republicans feel that it is plain wrong to add points to LSAT test scores for black college applicants just because their skin is black.

Republicans feel that it's the government's role to build the playing field and let the people play on it. If one group or the other starts winning the game, the Republicans feel that it's not the government's role to change the rules to make the score closer.

Well said, wish I knew how to star a post...

Republicans (not all Republicans!) see the same issues you pointed out, and yet they feel it is better to err on the side of less government intervention to solve these problems.

I agree with the less intervention. But would giving incentives to companies to help rebuild and relocate to urban ghetto areas to provide good paying jobs for those communities involve a bigger government. I honestly feel that solutions don't always require bigger government. It is based more on cooperation and good intentions.

Democrats play group politics for the votes. Republicans do the same. The problem is that with a bigger government the Dems have more to offer. That means more spending and more taxes.

Originally posted by mhc_70

Well said, wish I knew how to star a post...

Thanks!

There's a blank outline of a star at the top of each post to the right of the poster's name. Sometimes depending on the monitor it might be hard to see.

Just click on it and it will turn blue!

You're welcome.

Originally posted by jamie83
I understand 100% now where you, and the Dems, are coming from.

Just to be clear, I am not speaking FOR Democrats. I am not a Democrat and I cannot speak for them. I am giving my opinion of why they do what they do.

Republicans (not all Republicans!) see the same issues you pointed out, and yet they feel it is better to err on the side of less government intervention to solve these problems.

I understand. But less government intervention isn't working. Actually, I am quite conservative in that I believe in less government. If you would see my stances on welfare and Affirmative Action, you would be totally shocked, as I sound like a Republican on those (and other) issues.

However, I understand that it's not realistic to just hope that things even out and that eventually, these problems will work out on their own. And if you were a member of one of those groups (I'm assuming you're not), you may be tired of waiting for it to happen on its own. You may want some support from the government whose job it is to protect the rights of ALL people.

I have the benefit of being an educated woman who worked in a professional environment and received 75-80% of my male colleagues' salary, who didn't work as hard or well as I did.

(As regards my blanket statement about Republicans, I am speaking in generalities, as I assumed you were in your first post and thread title about Democrats.)

A perfect example is gun control. Republicans feel law abiding citizens should have guns, and if somebody commits a crime with a gun, they should be punished severely.

I can't argue with this. I agree 100%. I support the 2nd Amendment 100%.

As for group politics, Republicans feel that laws and regulations should apply to everybody, and not be directed towards groups.

And that would be fine in an ideal world, where people were held responsible for not hiring a black man because they didn't like black people or whatever. But it's VERY hard to enforce that. Not impossible, but very hard.

For example, Republicans feel that it is plain wrong to add points to LSAT test scores for black college applicants just because their skin is black.

Republicans aren't the only ones who feel that way. It IS wrong. It's wrong that black kids are denied a good education because they live in enclaves of poor, underfunded areas of large cities. It's all "wrong". But until everyone is treated equally and is offered the same education as everyone else, SOMETHING should be done to make up for it.

Off topic:
jamie, you just can't compartmentalize people as "Republicans believe this way and Democrats believe that way. And anyone voting for McCain is a Republican and anyone voting for Obama is a Democrat." That's why you get into so much trouble on this board and why you get little respect from people you disagree with. You make up your mind that they're a Democrat and deserving of your scorn. I have voted for Republicans, Democrats and Independents and I belong to no party.

Republicans feel that it's the government's role to build the playing field and let the people play on it. If one group or the other starts winning the game, the Republicans feel that it's not the government's role to change the rules to make the score closer.

Well, then, they need to make sure that all parties are playing by the same rules and on the SAME playing field. The public school system is responsible for the basic education of all Americans. If one school has a computer per student and 12 students per well-paid teacher and another school has no computers and 35 students per cheap teacher, when the students bring themselves to the college playing field, you've got a great discrepancy on the playing field. When THAT problem gets solved, then we can do away with this LSAT scores nonsense.

You hear people saying they're excited that Obama, a black man, may be our next president. THIS IS WHY. When a black man becomes president of the USA, it makes a statement. It says that this country is really getting beyond its racial scars. If a black man can be president... if a black child can watch TV and see a black man being treated with utmost respect... that says that we are getting closer and closer to the time when we CAN live without government interference. We CAN do away with Affirmative Action. We CAN submit LSATs without added points, because society will have moved beyond racism to the point where everyone has an equal chance.

Republicans are living like we're already there and we aren't.

[edit on 3-9-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by jam321
I agree with the less intervention. But would giving incentives to companies to help rebuild and relocate to urban ghetto areas to provide good paying jobs for those communities involve a bigger government. I honestly feel that solutions don't always require bigger government. It is based more on cooperation and good intentions.

Good point.

The city of Pittsburgh has done just that, but with housing. Areas that used to be ugly and run down now are looking fresh because incentives were provided to build there.

What's important is the type of carrot the government hangs out for people. Giving away free money to people if they are poor rewards people for being poor. Giving tax breaks for certain things rewards people for working.

I always thought that the quickest way to end poverty would be to give people matching funds, dollar for dollar, on what they earn. The details would need to be worked out, but the principle is sort of like a reverse tax.

Seriously why do you have to have 500 posts about how republican you are?

You sound blinded by your obsession with the party.

I move that you are warned by ATS to stop your constant propaganda.

Oh yeah, transgender rights is always how I chose a president.

Originally posted by jamie83

There's a blank outline of a star at the top of each post to the right of the poster's name. Sometimes depending on the monitor it might be hard to see.

Just click on it and it will turn blue!

Cool, thanks!

reply to post by jamie83

I always thought that the quickest way to end poverty would be to give people matching funds, dollar for dollar, on what they earn. The details would need to be worked out, but the principle is sort of like a reverse tax.

Big star. Now that is what I am talking about. Solutions, Solutions, Solutions. Instead of building that bridge to nowhere, why don't we use that money to revitalize our urban community and give those people some real hope?

It doesn't require a big government, it requires a big heart and the will to do the right thing. Too many times our tax dollars goes primarily into the pockets of contractors when the money could better be used for improving the lives and communities of many of our fellow Americans. I am not talking about a handout. These same communities also have to put forth the time, work, and effort to help rebuild their communities.

Originally posted by jamie83

They have all these issues on their web sites:

gay issues
lesbian issues
transgender issues
black issues
hispanic issues
women's issues
organized labor issues
etc..

On the other hand, the Republicans seem to focus on issues for the country overall...

Strong military and defense
Smaller government
Lower taxes
less regulation etc.

So why do you think this is? Why do Democrats seem to focus on group politics and Republicans focus on issues common to everybody?

So your saying that republicans don't care about gay issues (gay marriage), women's issues (abortion), hispanic issues (immigration), organized labor issues (unions...to be or not to be)?

I think your list of issues pubs care about should have looked like this:

National Security
Taxes
Size of Government
Amount of regulation

If you did you would see that all parties do care about these issues and do focus on them, it's just that they differ on how they should be solved.

Also, you kind of have to recognize group politics because if not certain issues regarding those groups wouldn't be solved.

Like equal pay for women, immigration and how to create fair wages for immigrant workers, racial profiling (i.e. how many more minorities are in prison and are living in poor neighborhoods than whites), gays are people too just because you don't agree with their lifestyle doesn't mean you should punish them by taking their rights away (there is a difference between recognizing a marriage and a union), etc. etc.

[edit on 3-9-2008 by nunya13]

The Democrats' major grievance with government is that they don't feel it has it's priorities straight.

Republicans grievance is more a matter of efficency and strength of the government. They push for a government that is less expensive yet stronger militarily and in terms of law enforcement.

So the Democrats break down into special interests who want their issues to be made a priority by government, whereas the Republicans share a more unified goal. The Dems need to make each group feel included, hence the silly lists.

I don't like the special interests much, but I usually vote Democrat just because I disagree with the Republican approach towards strength and efficiency. Starting wars and cutting taxes while running up the defecit and refusing to help the poor doesn't make a lot of sense for the long-term well-being of the nation.

reply to post by jamie83


SImple, it is called divide and conquer. It is how all tyrants pursue and keep power over a set of constituents that are ignorant chattel from their perspective. Read the "Road to Serfdom".

All forms of socialism, i.e. government programs that take money from me and give to the knotheads, leads to tyranny.

Modern US democrat = far left wing = progressive = (modern) liberal = communist = facist = tyranny

-Euclid

Modern US democrat = far left wing = progressive = (modern) liberal = communist = facist = tyranny

-Euclid

Actually facism has nothing to do with communism and are on completely different ends of the spectrum.

Communism = extreme left wing

Facism = extreme right wing

Tyranny comes from both sides. Also, I take strong argument against your extreme generalizations.

I am a liberal. I am not a democrat. and I actually do agree with republicans on certain issues. This goes for many other Americans.

Originally posted by nunya13


Modern US democrat = far left wing = progressive = (modern) liberal = communist = facist = tyranny

-Euclid

Actually facism has nothing to do with communism and are on completely different ends of the spectrum.

Communism = extreme left wing

Facism = extreme right wing

Tyranny comes from both sides. Also, I take strong argument against your extreme generalizations.

I am a liberal. I am not a democrat. and I actually do agree with republicans on certain issues. This goes for many other Americans.



The idea that fascism is a right wing is a misconstruction. Functionally fascism is the same as communism. The hierarchical structure of it is the same as communism as well. Therefore they are equal in effect and purpose.

Most democrats are communists they just won't admit it.

The opposite of tyranny/dictatorship/control (i.e. - communism/fascism/etc) is Liberty/Individual sovereignty/Individual Responsibility (anarchy).

-Euclid

[edit on 6-9-2008 by euclid]

reply to post by mental modulator


Its not that I question whether Jamie is being paid or not to post this garbage, its that I question why on earth are they paying Jamie?! I mean honestly these threads are little more than childish gossip. Is this really the best the RNC can come up with? I mean i dont deny the ignorance of some americans but still, honestly? why on earth are they wasting their money like this?

And by the way how pathetic, I mean really, all iv heard from righties here is "muslim" and "foreigner" and "blacks are this, that" not to mention they seem to label all liberals as either mentally disabled or "racist". The hypocrisy express is just beyond reason ya know...

[edit on 6-9-2008 by southern_Guardian]