What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Convention junkies can obsess details here!

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

Jon said:
None of you are addressing the important question: did the DNC beat "Honey Boo Boo"?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't think it would cut into its ratings. Isn't HBB just a Tea Party reality TV show?
 
Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

unofan said:
Which has what to do with the fact that you were wrong and scooby was right that covering birth control can be a cost savings measure?

If you want to shift the argument, or move the goalposts, fine. But admit you were wrong first.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to hold my breath.
 
Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

FreshFish said:
That's fine, though it seems weird that you consider pregnancy an "illness" that people need to be vaccinated against!

The issue is not one of choice, it is oneof compulsion against religious beliefs. Forcing religious organizations to dispense abortifacient drugs to their employees has nothing to do with fewer pregnancies; by definition abortifacients are only used after pregnancy has already occurred.

There are several religious organizations that are perfectly fine with preventive birth control that also are against abortion that have joined the lawsuit against HHS.
Click to expand...

There's no need to provoke him. He's already shown that he can't hold a good debate.
 
Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

5mn_Major said:
I am of the (probably unpopular) opinion that the conventions showed the true face of the parties and outlines arguably the best relationship between the two.

The DNC was full of positions and solutions to the challenges the country faces. Many of those are govt solutions...but those are not necessarily expensive nor often even costs...often just improvements. These are often updates that just bring us into the 21st century...I wouldn't underestimate countries like Singapore and how in tune they are with the modern global economy. And others such as the use of international diplomacy vs. rhetoric escalation of the right. The RNC was more vague and full of criticism. The media on the right has been largely negative for decades. I am of the opinion that 'right' media has shaped 'conservative' thought towards hyper critical while being less adept at identifying and implementing true solutions to our problems. Now this can be good as it represents a way of policing the actions of the dems who are putting together the solutions and innovating the country.

So the positions of dems is the derivation of solutions and taking action as a party in power. The position of the GOP on the outside is specializing in critical governance to moderate dem activity and help to reduce govt spending. The hope in this dems in power/GOP in police mode is that the GOP successfully reigns Dem spending, that Dems get us to the right govt revenue and that the GOP doesn't stop every solution that the Dems put into place.
Click to expand...
What you saw was one convention of a party presently in power, and one convention of a party not in power.

A minority party has a couple of choices. You can go along with being a minority party, achieving small victories here and there, trying to force a compromise from the majority by offering "bipartisan" support in exchange for shaving the sharper edges off of the more unpopular legislation. This is how the general public would probably prefer that the party out of power act, and at various times in our history we've actually seen that occur. The problem, from the minority party standpoint is it can lead to a sense that the legislative branch is actually accomplishing something, and lead to perpetual minority status.

A second option for a minority party is to obstruct. You say the sun comes up in the east, I say it comes up in the west. Whatever you want, I don't want. Thwart the agenda of the executive branch at every turn. As a result, not a lot gets done (not necessarily a terrible outcome), or legislation gets rammed through and then the other party just does everything they can to badmouth it, obstruct it, overturn it, or at a minimum, run against it in the next election.

The Republicans have chosen option 2. Anyone who thinks they're the first and only party to have adopted this tactic is being a bit naive.

When a party takes that approach, politics takes on what looks like a particularily vicious tone, and it appears that one party is offering "solutions" and the other party is offering "attacks." But it's just politics, and that's why politics is a bunch of bs.
 
Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

The only real solution to gridlock is to give one party the keys, and for that you need a wave election plus a strong incumbent of the same party plus systemic forces that are pushing for change rather than the status quo.

I can't see that happening in November for either party under any set of circumstances, so I think what we see is what we get for another few years. The Republicans are the logical party to emerge with a strong majority across the board, but they are locked in their demographic and ideological death spiral right now.

By 2020 I expect the political landscape to be unrecognizable. The GOP has to change or die, and modern major parties do not die. With the GOP changing significantly it will be like conference realignment, with dramatic effects on Democratic constituencies even though they didn't initiate the change.

I would not be surprised if the new order that emerges has much more regional diversity within the parties, like what we see now with Governships and state houses. The "big box store" model of the national parties is becoming obsolete.
 
Last edited:
Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

Kepler said:
The only real solution to gridlock is to give one party the keys, and for that you need a wave election plus a strong incumbent of the same party plus systemic forces that are pushing for change rather than the status quo.

I can't see that happening in November for either party under any set of circumstances, so I think what we see is what we get for another few years.
Click to expand...

Right. And I'd rather have what we have now then some nutbar who wants to go to war with Iran and Russia in there.
 
Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

FlagDUDE08 said:
The GOP did not control both the house and senate until 2003.
Click to expand...

We still had bipartisan cooperation at that time. It's gotten progressively worse over the last decade. Thus, Obama has had it MUCH WORSE than GW ever did.
 
Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

ScoobyDoo said:
Right. And I'd rather have what we have now then some nutbar who wants to go to war with Iran and Russia in there.
Click to expand...
Militarism and aggression are hemlines within the parties. For most of the 20th Century the Republicans were far more conservative in involving the US in the world's eternal whack-a-mole game while the Dems wanted to be all over the globe spreading the Gospel of America. Now it has reversed. It will, eventually, reverse again.
 
Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

FlagDUDE08 said:
The GOP did not control both the house and senate until 2003.
Click to expand...

Factually incorrect. GOP controlled the Senate coming out of the 2000 elections due to Cheney being the tiebreaker vote in a 50/50 Senate. Only until Jeffords switched in early 2002 I believe did the inept Daschle become majority leader, a position he held until Jan of 2003 when the new Congress took over after the Nov elections which gave the Republicans a clear majority.
 
Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

Kepler said:
Militarism and aggression are hemlines within the parties. For most of the 20th Century the Republicans were far more conservative in involving the US in the world's eternal whack-a-mole game while the Dems wanted to be all over the globe spreading the Gospel of America. Now it has reversed. It will, eventually, reverse again.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think the Dems are done with global whack-a-mole.
 
Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

ScoobyDoo said:
I disagree. I think the Dems are done with global whack-a-mole.
Click to expand...
We can hope they are done for our lifetime, anyway. I can imagine a future Muscular Liberalism launching a crusade to free the world from religious fundamentalism, the way the US had led defense against other forms of dictatorship. Imagine say a Pentacostal South America becomes militarized by Christianists who want to give the Islamists a run for their money and nuke the world for Jesus. Who's gonna stop them? We have our own fundy fifth column to worry about on the right.
 
Last edited:
Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

Kepler said:
We can hope they are done for our lifetime, anyway. I can imagine a future Muscular Liberalism launching a crusade to free the world from religious fundamentalism, the way the US had led defense against other forms of dictatorship. Imagine say a Pentacostal South America becomes militarized by Christianists who want to give the Islamists a run for their money and nuke the world for Jesus. Who's gonna stop them? We have our own fundy fifth column to worry about on the right.
Click to expand...

Hopefully Afghanistan has proved that some things aren't worth fighting. Hell, most of the free elections in the Middle East are electing fundamentalists anyway. What's the point? Even our own elections are electing fundamentalists.
 
Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

ScoobyDoo said:
Hopefully Afghanistan has proved that some things aren't worth fighting. Hell, most of the free elections in the Middle East are electing fundamentalists anyway. What's the point? Even our own elections are electing fundamentalists.
Click to expand...

If Vietnam didn't prove that, I highly doubt Afghanistan would.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top