What on Earth makes her think the health-reform bill is that unpopular? To half the people who have a problem with it, the problem is that it doesn’t go far enough; but they’re still pleased with half a loaf.
Succintly, because the second sentence implied that Cisco was the democrat instead, leaving the lady unclassified by dint of not being Cisco. If the sentence had said “Despite her claiming to be a registered Democrat”, that would be different. But it didn’t.
On topic, I know a woman with the same poor grasp of reality as is described in the OP - only on the subjects of religion and politics. Otherwise she’s intelligent and non-inflammatory. I blame the deliberate and intentional campaign of lies and inflammation the Republicans have replaced their entire platform with. I do not think that it’s going to necessarily drive us to inevitable violence and anarchy, though.
It will be even more popular in two years when people know those who get the benefits, the death panels mysteriously don’t appear and no one kept them from going to their old doctor.
This is why Republicans cause gigantic deficits. They run on smaller government and tax cutting, do cut taxes, and then find their constituents like their government programs just fine. So they either don’t cut or else add to programs. In California, poll after poll show that people think taxes are too high and government is too big, but like every single program there is.
That was a pretty big implicit claim of hers. She said that a big part of Obama’s agenda is to end Hillary’s political career (how appointing her to one of his highest cabinet positions accomplishes this is beyond me.) She also said that Hillary disagrees with everything Obama does, but is constantly silenced by him, though again, how she would know this is beyond me. When I asked her if she thought Hillary should be president, though, she flubbered.
I have lots more to respond to in this thread but my internet connection is down for some reason and I’m not in love with posting from my phone.
It looks like I couldve been more clear, but it’s beyond obvious at this point what I meant. I am not party-affiliated. Please drop this.
I don’t mean to harp on you, and I’m sorry it seems that way. I was merely astonished by Czarcasm’s first read (because seriously, she sounded like a Republican), and then I was explaining myself. Regardless, you have more than sufficiently explained this person’s credentials. Not exactly a credit to her party, is she?
The woman in the OP was one example. Particularly disturbing to me because she’s almost done with her master’s degree in political science and will be teaching our youth soon, but still just one example. Have you not followed any news, don’t have any friends or family who hate Obama, haven’t heard about the Tea Party? Haven’t heard about the resurgence of militias? Haven’t heard one word out Sarah Palin? Haven’t heard anything about Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, or any of the countless other right-wing windbags who are doing everything they can to stir up hatred and discontent? Haven’t seen a “time to water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants” sign held by a guy carrying a gun (I have)? Haven’t heard of death threats, bricks thrown through windows, gas lines cut?
I realize that discourse has gotten pretty nasty in the past, but I have a feeling it’s about to get worse than it has in a long time. New media has given voices to more people than ever, and that includes a lot of shit-stirrers who never would’ve been heard outside of their own street corner, even as recently as a couple decades ago.
A lot of people trot out the line that they’ve been a lifelong whatever, and then start complaining about everything the whatevers have ever done. It’s an attempt to argue from authority I guess, and show “Even the whatevers hate the whatevers! See how awful the whatevers are?”. It’s pretty lame.
I remember in 2004 seeing a bumper sticker that said “ANOTHER Democrat for Bush.” It was the only one of its kind I ever saw. Heh.
I don’t think you understand my point. It is by now beyond all peradventure that “coarsening the public discourse” is the left’s version of “why do you hate America” (before it became self-parody).
Frankly, that you lump this completely calm woman whose only shortcoming is that she has different political views than yours and was not suitably abashed about expressing them with the “time to water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants” sign-carriers reveals only that the Tea Partiers do not have a monopoly on fever-dreams. You and Wesley Clark (on the SDMB, not the former Army general) sure do give them a run for their money.
The upshot of all this is that you are not concerned about debasing political discourse. The fact that even even-keeled but opposing political expression offends you shows that what you really want to do is close the political discourse down.
Don’t project on me. I can handle different political views just fine, thank you. Many of my closest friends and family - even some of my role models - have political values that are wildly different from mine, and I don’t give one whit. I’m worried about irrational, non-fact based hatred of our president, which is what this woman, and everybody else I listed in my last post, have demonstrated.
What discourse? We’ve reached the point where one side is ignoring what the other side is saying - along with large chunks of the rest of objective reality. You can’t get an exchange of ideas when one side is only listening to their inner voices.
Yeah, I really don’t buy the outrage from “lifelong democrats” over “Obamacare.” The Democratic Party has been advocating for universal health care for a very long time. Truman pushed pretty hard for it in 1945. I think every Democratic President since then has been in favor of it. For someone to act completely SHOCKED that a Democrat would expand health insurance coverage just doesn’t ring true.
Did they pass UHC when I wasn’t looking?? I thought they passed a health care reform bill that had parts of it taken from Republican proposals during the Clinton administration (though I’ve only heard that here on the SD, so can’t vouch for it’s accuracy). In any case, what we did get really isn’t anything like UHC…so, yeah, I could see why some ‘lifelong democrats’ may be less than thrilled.
Also, again, people who self-identify as ‘democrat’ may not be LIBERALS…or, they may be liberals but not Obama fans. Or, they may be liberals and Obama fans, but think that the reform bill didn’t go far enough…or went to far.
I get the impression that some of you in this thread equate ‘democrat’ with ‘thinks exactly like me…or else they are obviously REPUBLICANS!’. This is laughable.
"But I don’t know how Mr. Nixon got elected, dear. I mean…none of MY friends voted for him!’.
Seriously…you don’t know that not all Democrats are fiscal liberals? Or do you consider any self identified ‘democrat’ that doesn’t think just like you to be a false Democrat?
-XT
If I’m talking to somebody like that in real life, I generally slip in a remark while they’re complaining along the lines of “yeah, isn’t it a pity about the Florida Supreme Court back in 2000, if only Al Gore had taken office things would probably be in a lot better shape today”. Fake “lifelong Democrats” usually choke on trying to pretend they supported Gore.
I have no objection to listening to somebody complain about what’s wrong with the Democrats, nor do I object if genuine Democrats sincerely change their minds about their political party preference because they’re unhappy with some Democratic policies. But I do object to people’s lying about their own political affiliation in order to try to make their complaints sound more convincing.
If you’re talking about me, I think that believing a large number of things that are 1) claimed to be true by republican information sources, and 2) shown to be false everywhere else, suggests that your primary source of info is republican info sources. Which is behavior I expect only of republicans. I admit I could be wrong about single-issue embittered Clintonian democrats who are now DINOs as a result, though.
I’ve been registered as a Libertarian since I was 18 (I was young and naive back then) and I haven’t bothered to change it. But I’m not going to pull the “I’m a registered Libertarian and I’m outraged by all this deregulation!” card to lend myself extra credence in the one in a million chance that a Lib gets elected. I’m not going to pretend that the Libertarians veered to the Right, because the truth is that I’ve veered to the Left. I truly am a “Libertarian In Name Only.”
Pretending to be a Democrat in order to look more convincing when criticizing Democrats even seems to have gained a little traction as a coordinated political strategy:
No, actually I wasn’t.
The thing is, I’ve met a lot of folks who are Democrats who are a LOT more conservative than I am…and I’m considered a ‘conservative’ in these parts, at least by the non-conservative 'dopers.
What do you consider a primary source of republican info? Fox News? If so all I can say is…hilarious. Just because you (and I for that matter) don’t watch Fox, and think they are full of shit, doesn’t mean that only Republicans watch it. Plenty of Democrats (and Independents) watch it as well…that’s why their freaking ratings are so high.
I suppose it boils down to the whole In Name Only part. If you think you (the royal ‘you’, obviously ;)) is the font of all things that are REALLY ‘democrat’ then I suppose that’s true enough. But ‘democrat’ means different things to different people…and not all of them are synonymous with liberal ideals…just like not all things ‘republican’ coincide in lock step with conservative ideals. That’s what it means to be big tent parties. Someone can self identify as a democrat and not like Obama (I know…it’s shocking) just like not everyone who self identified as republican had to like Bush (or even…brace yourself…Reagan!). There are conservative democrats and there are liberal republicans, there are democrats who don’t want UHC or higher taxes, and there are (hard as it is to believe right now) republicans who are ok with UHC. If you get down below the rhetoric of the parties themselves and down to the level of the people, you will find that real people have a hodge podge of things they like and don’t like, and often they only marginally relate to what the real political wonks (such as those on this board) or the parties themselves think.
Anyway, sorry to have hijacked this thread. I don’t believe that the political discourse has noticeable dropped, nor do I think there is a snowballs chance in hell of the Republicans gaining anything like a majority in either the house or senate any time soon…and I also don’t think that ‘Obamacare’ will have a large negative effect on Obama’s re-election chances, not in the time frames we are talking about and with the schedule of implementation of the reforms…not unless something fairly major happens and it’s just part of an over all nose dive in his popularity and the popularity of his vision and direction. Personally, I think he’s pretty much a shoe in for re-election, and I think he’ll sail through to a second term, but my powers of prediction aren’t notably accurate so take that with a large mountain of salt…
-XT