Hardly.
Liberman himself almost switched to the republican party of his own volition. That would have made a 50/50 split in the senate with Cheney having the deciding vote so Dems got on their knees to ask him to stay.
You really should not hang your hat on Lieberman being a liberal.
After or before he lost the primary? If the former, please provide a cite for this claim. (I assume what this is about - if true altogether - is Lieberman exerting pressure to be allowed to keep his committee assignments after he lost the primary and won as an independent.)
Wouldn’t the younger cohort of most any movement tend to be more atheistic, as religion’s influence fades?
I’m looking forward to it, myself.
After he lost the primary (and remember he won the general election due to strong support from republicans).
Also remember McCain considered Lieberman as a running mate in 2008 and although that did not happen Lieberman was a keynote speaker at the republican national convention and Lieberman endorsed McCain and not Obama (or Clinton).
Just what does a guy need to do before you think, “Yeah, I can see his party not being happy with him and justifiably so”?
I keep making the same point again and again and you keep ignoring it. For the last time:
At the time Lieberman was defeated in the Democratic primary, he had not done any of the independent-minded things you keep bringing up. At that time, he was a Democrat who was more hawkish about the war than the party as a whole. That’s all. And for that, he was targeted by liberals and defeated in his primary.
Democrats did not target Lieberman because of things that he was going to do later after he became independent as a result of their having previously targeted him.
It’s an exact equivalent to the TP targeting Republicans who they feel were insufficiently conservative (or whatever their issues were in a given case).
And, one more time, Lieberman strayed far beyond the one issue of the Iraq War.
You seem to be trying to push a notion that Lieberman was a die hard liberal who made one misstep and the party faithful crucified him for it.
Quite the opposite really. He made MANY missteps and the Dems kept him anyway for a long time. FAR longer than I considered reasonable (and frankly they would have tossed him except he made it 51/49 instead of 50/50 with Cheney as the tiebreaker).
And you have not answered what you consider sufficient reason for party constituents to back away from a candidate. What transgression is enough to say enough is enough? We want nothing to do with you anymore.
Is there something wrong with that? The TP had big disagreements with establishment Republicans.
The context of this discussion is the point made by WAM in post #114.
Have you read the rest of the review?
Thank you, Gyrate. I was unable to respond promptly to puddleglum — first I had to clean off my laptop screen, which hilarity had sputtered with coffee. :smack:
The GOP passes legislation that allows private businesses to discriminate, the Democrats pass legislation that mandates the government treat people differently by race and sex. It is obvious which is more fascistic.
People were so happy that Obama was elected they decided to form a personality cult. Even Liberals such as Paul Krugman noticed that “I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality.” Look at this video or thisif you don’t believe me.
Here is a fact checkthat debunks the notion that Obamacare had significant input from Republicans. All the Republican amendments except a couple were technical issues and did not affect the substance of the bill.
I not only read the review, I read the book. Have you?
I don’t know about fascistic, but the preferred policy of many/most Republicans would allow sundown towns (which still exist, of course, just are far less common and less public than the pass) to exist openly. Considering how common white supremacist views still are (like the unfortunately high number of folks who still think interracial marriage should be illegal), I think this would be very damaging to the country.
As a modern liberal, this is my viewpoint about what the role of government is, and it’s not anywhere close to what Mussolini believed. The government should try to keep a balance in looking after the safety, well being, and freedom of the citizens. In practice this means that some regulations are a good thing because they prevent powerful private interests (corporations) from taking away the rights and freedoms of ordinary people. The thing is that conservatives use their advertising to attack the tools of liberalism (like government regulations) because if they attacked the goals they wouldn’t get enough votes to win election. Here are some examples of where conservatives claim to oppose things on principle where I think they are actually fighting for a particular outcome.
Environmental policy. Conservatives want to reduce or eliminate government regulations on things like the coal and oil industry, supposedly because government regulations are bad. The thing is that the purpose of these regulations is to prevent the coal and oil industry from harming the general public, and eliminating them benefits the owners and executives of these companies while damaging the general public, including all the people who will be living in coastal cities several decades from now when all the coastal cities get covered by the ocean.
Health care. Liberals support universal health care, conservatives want to go back to and strengthen the pre-Obamacare days when Blue Cross, Humana, United, etc. got to tell you what they would and wouldn’t cover. Conservatives make liberals out to be bullies by forcing people to have health insurance, but what they really want is a different set of bullies (the owners and executives of health insurance companies) to be allowed to enrich themselves at the expense of ordinary people.
School choice. Another conservative favorite. They claim liberals are against school choice. What we’re really against is conservatives being allowed to teach creationism, climate denial, and their particular brand of religion at the public expense. A part of me is also beginning to suspect that Republicans in power know that they receive greater support from people with less education and that they are purposely sabotaging the education system so that more people will be less educated and thus more likely to vote Republican.
I could come up with more examples, but I’ll end with this saying. They say your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. Republicans claim that it’s the government swinging and their nose is the one being hit. The reality is that it’s large private businesses (Exon, Halliburton, Dow Chemical, Monsanto, Blue Cross, Humana, big coal, etc.) that are swinging at ordinary people, and the government pre-Trump was keeping the big business fist from hitting ordinary people. Liberals realize this truth, and conservatives don’t.
You don’t seem to know anything about what Mussolini wanted.
Yeah but then the ACA was substantially similar to a bill the republicans put forth in the 90’s. Granted the republican bill went nowhere and many republicans opposed it but it also had substantial support. The point being is the ACA should be far from being something all republicans hate since not long ago many were for much the same thing.
What year is it where you are? Where I am it is 2017 and sundown towns are as much of a threat as dragon attacks.
That bill did not have the Medicare expansion which is most of what Obamacare is. It was also designed to not as a republican design bill but as a compromise bill to defeat the even worse Hillarycare. It was also introduced by Lincoln Chafee, last seen running for president as a Democrat.
Apologies for my dim wit, but it’s not clear to me which side is more fascistic based on this. Could you expound on this, please? And what specific dem legislation?
Thanks!
I get the feeling that “fascist” is in a class with “SJW” or “bigot”: one of those paint-your-enemy words that has a tendency to just shut down meaningful dialog.