Democrats: Do you agree with the Platform Amendments?

What better proof that they are all stooges. The clip Jon Stewart aired on the crowd being roughly split on the issue, the speaker then declaring that 3/4th of the crowd voted Yay, and then showing the teleprompter which was already set to acceptance of these positions really shocked me. It shocked me because I didn't think the crowd would be split (I thought they would be for it), and it shocked me that they behaved in a manner I'm all to used to seeing in other parts of the world. What a shame.

Take your country from these puppets. Don't be so blinded by hatred of the other side that you can't see how you're fueling each others' negative behavior.

<div style="background-color:#000000;width:520px;"><div style="padding:4px;"><iframe src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/embed/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:418811" width="512" height="288" frameborder="0"></iframe><p style="text-align:left;background-color:#FFFFFF;padding:4px;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:0px;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"><b><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-6-2012/hope-and-change-2---democratic-platform-amendments">The Daily Show with Jon Stewart</a></b><br/>Get More: <a href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/'>Daily Show Full Episodes</a>,<a href='http://www.indecisionforever.com/'>Political Humor & Satire Blog</a>,<a href='http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow'>The Daily Show on Facebook</a></p></div></div>

 

I don't agree with them because I don't believe in them. I don't believe the word God has a place in a party's platform in a convention leading up to a presidential election and I believe that the recognition of Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel sets back Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts badly. Nothing is worth that.

I also believe that Democrats would lose if they/we had stuck to their/our guns on this, as surely as we would have if Obama had come out for gay marriage four years ago.

And if we can't get elected, we can feel morally superior (because we will be) and that can provide a small consolation for losing. We could do the same by nominating Kucinich or voting for the Green Party. And a lot of people woke up with a damn bad and damn remorseful on the morning after the 2000 election for voting Nader on the same grounds.

Change doesn't happen overnight. And I'll take our mistruths of omission (especially when our own party is not united in these areas -- there are honest disagreements) over the blatant and hateful lies of the other side.

Personally, I oppose the amendments as they are not in line with my personal beliefs.

As a Democrat, I recognize that being 100% principled in all things will not serve our cause in the long run. Because we will lose to people that are principled in almost zero things.

As an American, I recognize the danger in that.

 

Sincere question: don't you think this mentality has failed, seeing as democrats are as close to republicans as ever on major issues? It appears from the outside that everyone is being pulled to the right. While it remains accurate that democrats are to the left of republicans, it seems the dems are succeeding in hiding the fact that the ground beneath them is shifting right.

Having said that, I wonder how many believe change is necessary in the fundamental structure to eliminate the need you are describing - one where you have to vote for the dems just to avoid the other guys - especially now that the big election backers have caught on and appear to have set up a "we either win or we win big" system.

Change is not going to happen overnight, but is change happening at all on a macro level? Change is not in the interest of these two parties, they are happy campers. They get a lot of whay they want even when they lose and whine about it.

 

That's silly. They should have turned on noise-o-meter to see which faction was louder.

 

Sincere answer:

Don't talk to me about macro change. Obama is the most accomplished president on the big things since LBJ.

http://whattheheckhasobamadonesofar.com/

 

I see that and agree with you.

But how is voting for him going to reduce the possibility that, as has been for decades, another president will come in and affect things at the macro level more negatively than Obama has done positively?

When is it going to be time to stop offering tax cuts to high income earners and repealing them, back and forth, over and over the result of which is a nice, constant net reduction in taxes from the high income segment of the population?

When is it going to be a person who declares that the defense spending is not aligned with any relevant factors, that the recipients function in one of the most unregulated and unsupervised environments, and that cutting defense spending is a viable way to ease domestic economic woes for virtually the entire population? I have selfish reasons for this, but there is at least equal value for almost all Americans in pursuing this avenue.

When is the race for public service seats going to be about the people who align themselves with the population rather than with money and power? This has been going on since the American revolution, when a small percentage of the population were openly supporting leadership that would protect their pre-democratic assets?

Most importantly, how on earth are these things going to happen? The line between (1) willingness and (2) ability to bring about such changes are well-guarded, and the population is occasionally appeased with minor temporary concessions. My sense from your posts is that you believe that positive change is taking place on macro issues in the long-term, but even ignoring foreign policy, I can't see that this has happened domestically other than minor victories.

Obama is the best choice of the crop, for sure. But think about the fact that Obama is far enough to the right, that Romney has had to concoct a more right-wing personality to succesfully run against him, and this has resulted in him being able to pose a formidable challenge. All signs indicate that the plan of: "keep voting for the better of the two potential winners, and over time the result will be positive" has failed.

Being a non-American it's likely there are things I'm not looking at. What indicators give you comfort that this strategy (which seems to be the strategy of most) is resulting in slow progress rather than merely slowing down regression?

The indicators I normally look at are for example R&D, relative wages, health care, safety, progress in education, access to opportunities, quality of life, self-determination. Some of these can be judged on absolute terms, and some have to be put into context of progress in the international/developed community. The other thing I look at is the resources available to develop these things, so things like human capital, natural resources and financial resources.

From an outside point of view I look at this and can't help but think: over the last 50 or so years, it doesn't seem to be the case that a specific individual/party is the problem or the solution. It looks very much like the same type of people (in many cases, the same families) who tried to stave off progress for the American population so many decades ago have perfected a strategy of minimizing progress, after many decades of having to make real concessions. If those families had a single CEO, that CEO has performed tremendously in bringing things back to their preferred version of normal. More importantly, they seem to have sealed off any avenues for another turnaround i.e. if we get Romney, fantastic, but Obama will do. There isn't a conspiracy, but (as George Carlin used to say) there really doesn't need to be a conspiracy when interests converge.

Anyways, I'm mostly rambling in my own head, sorry for the TL;DR-worthy post.

 

You should make this your sig.

 

Didn't vote in the poll since I'm not a Democrat.

The God-given thing though seems like a non-event other than the circumstances around it. It's more idiomatic than it is theological. As a God reference, it's pretty paltry -- the barest minimum for saying you referenced God at all. So I suppose as a rhetorical device, it works well. You protect yourself from Republican accusations that you cut God out of your platform while not saying anything substantial to offend nonbelievers.

I am annoyed at the Israel clause though. What it says to me is we have no hope of ever resolving or extricating ourselves from the Israeli-Palestinian problem. And, honestly, as a very delicate issue in foreign relations, I think the parties have no business having a platform statement about it. By politicizing our position on Israel, you risk handicapping the president and any peace process and make resolution more difficult. It's especially dumb when the 2 parties don't have opposing positions, they're just climbing over one another to compete on who can be the bigger Israel ass-kisser.