To Be a Democrat Today...

[dukesteer]

What don't you understand that nobody wants to respond to a caricature? I (and Mr. Deez) have tried to explain that it's a disingenuous way to start a productive discussion to which you keep responding...well why aren't you responding? Listen more. Crockett was smarter than I when he responded as follows:

Husker, will you be appearing on Dancing With The Stars soon?

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

Every personal insult from you is a compliment. Take from that what you will.

Likewise, I'm sure.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Deez, Husker has chosen to avoid addressing my assertions — one of which you responded to above, and instead has attempted to turn this into some type of intellectual assessment of the author.

That's because he doesn't think you've raised your point in good faith and therefore doesn't think you're interested in a meaningful discussion. Perhaps you are interested in that, but your original post gives little reason to think that. Instead of posting your obviously hostile perception of what one must think to be a Democrat and then challenging someone to "refute" you, why not ask if there are any self-identified Democrats (or Democratic-leaners) here and ask them their rationale for being Democrats or why they're choosing Biden over Trump? I think you'd get a better engagement.

By the way, you're far more likely to change someone's mind or at least get him to think a second time, because a person's mind is far more open when he's shown respect rather than contempt. It's weird. Most of us are Christians and understand this when it comes to talking about our faith, but we don't think it applies to talking about politics. It certainly does.

My assertions were very specific. Rather than dodge, infer my intellectual inferiority, or attempt to demean (quite typical) with the debate analogy, how challenging would it be to refute the arguments? That is, unless he is unable to to do, which I suspect.

I refuted your argument, and you're still bringing this up.

I do believe that by supporting the Democrat Party and their candidates one is embracing the positions I laid out in my initial post.

No, that isn't necessarily so. Like I said, people choose their candidates for individualized reasons, and we don't always support a party to the ultimate degree. Ninety percent of the time, people here just troll Husker, so they rarely get him to be specific about what he thinks. However, for example, he has commented on abortion before. He's generally pro-choice, but he actually has supported some meaningful restrictions on late-term abortions. He's not Mike Pence on abortion, but he's not Ralph Northam either.

Let's put some perspective on this. Most of us are voting or have already voted for Trump. We're not all doing it for the same reasons. mchammer is a taint-worshipper for Trump and would back anything he does. To him, Trump is a friggin' comic book hero. By contrast, I didn't support him at all in 2016, and if Biden had shut the door on court packing, I wouldn't have supported him this time. What that should tell you is that one can "be a Republican" without us all believing some preconceived list of things. The same is true of Democrats. Hell, my vote for Trump was because of something his OPPONENT wouldn't say, and I made my decision during perhaps the worst rhetorical performance of Trump's presidency.

If anyone disagrees — that those are not the positions of most in the party and of the candidates, again, they should take the opportunity to offer counter arguments.

Now you've moved the goalpost. You've gone from "to be a Democrat today, you have to believe x, y, and z" to "x, y, and z are the positions of most in the party and of the candidates." Well, those are different contentions. You've backpedaled from unanimity to 50 percent plus 1.

And I still think there's plenty of room to take issue. Consider this one. "You have to believe that making NATO members pay their fair share is a bad thing." How many Democrats would actually say that it's a bad thing for NATO members to pay their fair share? Probably none.

Here's another one. "You have to believe that giving Iran a path to the bomb is fine, and that there is no reason not to trust them." Most Democrats would say that they aren't OK with Iran having a path to a bomb and that they don't trust Iran. They just think multilateral agreements (like the Iran deal) are the better path. (Note - I don't think they're right, but to say they are just "ok" with Iran having a bomb isn't accurate, and it's obvious trollery.) In fact, you'd probably find more people in the non-interventionist Right who think it's OK for Iran to get a bomb - not because they like or trust Iran but because they don't think it's anyone's business to dictate what weapons a foreign country can acquire. (See Monahorns.)

Honestly, I suspect that the purpose of lists like this is to serve as a diversion. It is to set up a strawman that's easy to attack to avoid having to address the more difficult points raised by the other side and to put them on the defensive. It's much easier to just say, "well you dumbasses are OK with Iran having a bomb" rather than having to explain with objectivity and specificity why the Iran deal is bad and likely won't serve its claimed goals. Like I said, I think one can demonstrate why the Iran deal is bad, but it definitely takes more work and thought than just saying the other side is OK with them getting a bomb.

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[horninchicago]

Congratulations, @Mr. Deez, SH thinks you're a winner!

 

[nashhorn]

Just for the fun of it.

 

[Horn6721]

Well She ^ is right about one thing. Who are We to say Corn Pop isn't real?

 

[matt_lee]

You have to believe that the outstanding economy Trump built was really built by Obama.

Not that hard to believe.

 

[Garmel]

Not that hard to believe.

Obama's economy was built on quantitative easing, which in not sustainable. Trump's was built on a real economy. Right before the the Covid induced recession real median income in America increased by $5,000 compared to Obama's time.

 

[4th_floor]

Not that hard to believe.

Something is wrong with your data.
Index......................2016 election.........2020 election.......%change
S&P............................2130......................3300................55%
Nasdaq.......................5050....................11160..............121%
DJ............................18850....................26560................41%

 

[Run Pincher]

Not that hard to believe.

Posting a graph without context shows a complete lack of understanding and failure to evaluate all variables. Of course there was a huge spike when Obama took over, he benefitted from the recovery of the greatest financial crises since the great depression. That crisis was created by a bubble created by fiscal policies from subprime lending, extremely lax lending, the belief everyone should have a house and greed. Where did those policies come from?

Of course it looks good from the surface. But if I'm on a diet and weigh 350 lbs and I'm comparing myself to someone weighing 120 lbs, I bet I can look good too.

 

[matt_lee]

Something is wrong with your data.
Index......................2016 election.........2020 election.......%change
S&P............................2130......................3300................55%
Nasdaq.......................5050....................11160..............121%
DJ............................18850....................26560................41%

Nope data is right, it's going from inauguration to June 3 of the 3rd year (not to the end)
I reproduce the calculation below:
S&P on 01/27/2017: 2294
S&P on 06/03/2019: 2873

(2873-2294) / 2294 = 25%

But even if you look at from inauguration to now and compare Obama's equivalent:

 

[matt_lee]

Of course there was a huge spike when Obama took over, he benefitted from the recovery of the greatest financial crises since the great depression.

And you don't credit the recovery to Obama?

By that logic, why should we credit the market growth in 2017 to Trump?

fiscal policies from subprime lending, extremely lax lending, the belief everyone should have a house and greed. Where did those policies come from?

You do know that when it comes to fiscal policies and financial regulations, republications are a lot more "liberal" than democrats right? Republicans are all about deregulations and lower corporate tax. And which party do you think Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act came from?

 

[Garmel]

*cough* longesthorn *cough*

 

[4th_floor]

Nope data is right, it's going from inauguration to June 3 of the 3rd year (not to the end)
I reproduce the calculation below:
S&P on 01/27/2017: 2294
S&P on 06/03/2019: 2873

(2873-2294) / 2294 = 25%

But even if you look at from inauguration to now and compare Obama's equivalent:

Why 6-3-2019? Is that the date the DNC sent to you?
By choosing 1-27-2017 as your starting point, you take advantage of the post election spike for Trump. Oct 31, 2016 is arguably a better measure of Obama's final stock market.
As Run Pincher noted, Obama inherited an economy and a stock market that was already in recovery from the most severe recession in history. The growth of the economy during the Obama years was the worst for a recovery in modern US history.

 

[iatrogenic]

Not that hard to believe.

I only remember Obama stating that Bush was responsible for the dismal economic recovery while he was Pres. Now you say Obama was responsible for the dismal recovery?

 

[Run Pincher]

And you don't credit the recovery to Obama?

By that logic, why should we credit the market growth in 2017 to Trump?



You do know that when it comes to fiscal policies and financial regulations, republications are a lot more "liberal" than democrats right? Republicans are all about deregulations and lower corporate tax. And which party do you think Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act came from?

Did I state that? Why to you choose to put forth a narrative I didn't make?

You can't compare apples to rocks though.

 

[Monahorns]

Maybe S&P 500 isn't the best indicator of the economy.

 

[iatrogenic]

Maybe S&P 500 isn't the best indicator of the economy.

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner!