NationStates Jolt Archive

Really, take a good, hard look at the democratic party. Can you or can you not tell me that there are two seperate parties in there, possibly more, and that the American Democratic Party will eventually, as in within the next few years, schizm into multiple, smaller parties?

Really, take a good, hard look at the democratic party. Can you or can you not tell me that there are two seperate parties in there, possibly more, and that the American Democratic Party will eventually, as in within the next few years, schizm into multiple, smaller parties?

Maybe, but you could say the same for the Republicans, if the moderates finally decide they've had enough. That is my problem with the Democrats, they aren't organized enough to take it to the Republicans. Things are getting too serious to just laugh with Will Rogers and say, "I don't belong to any organized political party, I'm a Democrat."

And it's "schism" ... no "z".

You've got that in both parties, different factions competing to make their own viewpoint the party platform. In the democratic party you have neo-liberals, new deal liberals, etc. in the GOP you've got Neo-cons, church republicans, and coalition conservatives.....

Yeah, but in the Democratic party it's much more obvious, and the views are much more different.

And it sounds cooler with a z

no the democratic party isnt going to disintegrate.

what fool decides to destroy his own power?

Really, take a good, hard look at the democratic party. Can you or can you not tell me that there are two seperate parties in there, possibly more, and that the American Democratic Party will eventually, as in within the next few years, schizm into multiple, smaller parties?

becuse they keep losing and also have bad leadership ...they made DEAN ...the head ??? Duh .... When the Dems......as a whole ..... drift back to the center a bit ...let me know..

Really, take a good, hard look at the democratic party. Can you or can you not tell me that there are two seperate parties in there, possibly more, and that the American Democratic Party will eventually, as in within the next few years, schizm into multiple, smaller parties?

Where is Ross when you need him?

Where is Ross when you need him?

Sent back to the nutbarn, I think. LOL. No, he went back to his businesses. As far as I know, he doesn't even do interviews on political subjects anymore.

Yeah, but in the Democratic party it's much more obvious, and the views are much more different.

And it sounds cooler with a z
The Democratic party has always been an open coalition of disparate forces and always seems on the brink of self-annihilation. Somehow we keep it together.

The Republican party has done a better job of presenting a unified front over the years, but it's just as fractious.

becuse they keep losing and also have bad leadership ...they made DEAN ...the head ??? Duh .... When the Dems......as a whole ..... drift back to the center a bit ...let me know..
When we win the House in two weeks thanks in part to Dean's 50-state strategy and his willingness to go into red strongholds and fight, I'll expect an apology to him. Dean's a moderate and always has been--8 times endorsed by the NRA for fuck's sake--and the fact that you consider him an extremist just shows how ridiculous your sense of moderation is.

When we win the House in two weeks thanks in part to Dean's 50-state strategy and his willingness to go into red strongholds and fight, I'll expect an apology to him. Dean's a moderate and always has been--8 times endorsed by the NRA for fuck's sake--and the fact that you consider him an extremist just shows how ridiculous your sense of moderation is.

I can honestly say that had Dean gotten the nomination in '04, I would have voted for him.

I can honestly say that had Dean gotten the nomination in '04, I would have voted for him.

My girlfriend still has a Dean for America bumpersticker on her truck. ;)

My girlfriend still has a Dean for America bumpersticker on her truck. ;)

Running Kerry was a major FU for the DNC. Even Clinton admitted that it was his and Gore's anti-gun policies that killed them (no pun intended) from '94 to '00 so what does the DNC do? The nominate a strong F candidate. Duh. All because of one hyperactive speech at a college.

My girlfriend still has a Dean for America bumpersticker on her truck. ;)

I still have one on my car. It shall stay there untill I get rid of it (next summer, with any luck)

Running Kerry was a major FU for the DNC. Even Clinton admitted that it was his and Gore's anti-gun policies that killed them (no pun intended) from '94 to '00 so what does the DNC do? The nominate a strong F candidate. Duh. All because of one hyperactive speech at a college.
I was no great fan of Kerry--he was fifth at best on my list of preferences during the primaries. I voted for him and defended him and even sent him some money, but I never liked him. He was too willing to accept the Bush frame on issues and never challenged him on it. Whatever issues people might have had with Dean, there was no question but that he was going to set the tone of the debate.

I was no great fan of Kerry--he was fifth at best on my list of preferences during the primaries. I voted for him and defended him and even sent him some money, but I never liked him. He was too willing to accept the Bush frame on issues and never challenged him on it. Whatever issues people might have had with Dean, there was no question but that he was going to set the tone of the debate.

Kerry's PR was also horrible. He got caught giving different information to two opposing groups. His staged "hunts" made him look like an idiot. The ONLY time he left the campaign trail to vote was against the firearm industry. He skipped numerous other votes (some of which failed by only one or two) on issues he claimed he strongly supported.

I'd like the OP to describe what he thinks of the republicans who have come forward against Bush and the current congress because they feel 'betrayed' that they aren't taking a hard enough stance against gays.

I'd like the OP to describe what he thinks of the republicans who have come forward against Bush and the current congress because they feel 'betrayed' that they aren't taking a hard enough stance against gays.

Ugh... This is about the Democrats, not the Republicans. As I said before, the Republicans, while they have multiple sub-parties with different views, they are still able to keep it all together. The Republicans certainly don't have two sub-parties whose views are completely different, like the Democrats. Oh, and don't talk so smug, and like I'm not here. Quote my post, and then say whatever you want to say, and say it to me, not to the air. Also, don't say I know shit since I barely have the same amount of posts as you. I've been here for about... Two years? I've had three nations on here.

Well there you go ...I was a republican until I saw the religion and other dumb shit...Shiavo .....killed me ....and the transition from a war I was gung ho for and what they did with it.

Now I am a Regstered democrat and working to elect Casey and Rendell...and me and Rendell are so far apart on gun controll its not funny..
and have argued in Person in fact over the issue.


But I change my resistration almost like underwear...only with the underwear its way more frequent....but hey ... Being registered " independent " sucks...if you are an American the primary is your ....most often...most important election ever...

Ugh... This is about the Democrats, not the Republicans. As I said before, the Republicans, while they have multiple sub-parties with different views, they are still able to keep it all together. The Republicans certainly don't have two sub-parties whose views are completely different, like the Democrats. Oh, and don't talk so smug, and like I'm not here. Quote my post, and then say whatever you want to say, and say it to me, not to the air. Also, don't say I know shit since I barely have the same amount of posts as you. I've been here for about... Two years? I've had three nations on here.

I sounded smug?

You said "Republicans, while they have multiple sub-parties with different views, they are still able to keep it all together", while ignoring the hardcore conservative GOP'ers who will vote constitution this November because they feel that Bush&co. stopped talking about the gay marriage issue once the campaign was over. They feel betrayed because they voted for the promise that there would be an amendment, and that promise was never fulfilled.


I'd like you to point to the part in my post where I know more than you, or the part where I say you know shit because of post counts (what kind of bullshit is that?) or that how long you've been coming here has something to do with intelligence.

please: loosen up, get the stick out of your ass, whatever it takes to not take every comment as a personal attack on your e-wang.

The topic may be about the democrats, but you worded your posts to make it sound like the republicans don't have the same problem. That was an oversight I wished to bring to your attention.

I sounded smug?

I'd like you to point to the part in my post where I know more than you, or the part where I say you know shit because of post counts (what kind of bullshit is that?) or that how long you've been coming here has something to do with intelligence.

It's just the fact that you didn't talk directly to me when saying you want me to respond. That just comes across... Smug around here.


please: loosen up, get the stick out of your ass, whatever it takes to not take every comment as a personal attack on your e-wang.



Ohhhhhhh the irony...


The topic may be about the democrats, but you worded your posts to make it sound like the republicans don't have the same problem. That was an oversight I wished to bring to your attention.

Ugh... More smugness. "An oversight I wished to bring to your attention". Do you know how that sounds? You act like I'm a complete idiot. Really... Let's just talk about democrats, please? And believe me, the "faction" of republicans you said who would be voting Constitutional are a small group. Most republicans are staying with the main party.

...comment as a personal attack on your e-wang.



Okay, you-I like.

You act like I'm a complete idiot.

You know: at the beginning, I really didn't.

But after seeing the big deal you're making out of this non-issue, I'm beginning to change my mind.

I have better things to spend my time on than this.

I will not be posting in this thread again.

I think Naliitr is acting a bit smug in his comments to Nevered... hypocrite. ;)


Anyway, the democratic party isn't about to split apart. There are different views yeah, but I just don't see the huge gap. The division between the religious conservatives and the economic ones in the Republican party actually seems a bit more clearly drawn to me, at least.

Besides, the democrats already split completely apart 50 years ago. I don't see anything as big as that happening today.

I will not be posting in this thread again.


Awww... I wanted to see you get Naliitr all worked up over nothing at all. :(

Awww... I wanted to see you get Naliitr all worked up over nothing at all. :(
Don't worry. You'll have many more chances, I suspect.

You know: at the beginning, I really didn't.

But after seeing the big deal you're making out of this non-issue, I'm beginning to change my mind.

I have better things to spend my time on than this.

I will not be posting in this thread again.

Oh come the fuck on. All of us are personally attacked in threads, but do we say "Oh. My feelings were hurt. I don't want to debate anymore, even though I'm right in the middle of it."? And don't give me that fucking "I have better things to do." bullshit. Both of us know that if you did have better things to do, you wouldn't be on here in the first place. And you brought up the "non-issue" yourself by saying "Well what about the Republicans?", and essentially saying in that message "You were too stupid to think about the Republicans."!

Maybe if you stay around for a while you'll grow up, instead of crying and running away to mommy everytime your feelings get hurt.

Oh come the fuck on. All of us are personally attacked in threads, but do we say "Oh. My feelings were hurt. I don't want to debate anymore, even though I'm right in the middle of it."? And don't give me that fucking "I have better things to do." bullshit. Both of us know that if you did have better things to do, you wouldn't be on here in the first place. And you brought up the "non-issue" yourself by saying "Well what about the Republicans?", and essentially saying in that message "You were too stupid to think about the Republicans."!

Maybe if you stay around for a while you'll grow up, instead of crying and running away to mommy everytime your feelings get hurt.
Not for nothin', dude, but it's a binary system and you included the republicans in your own opening post. The only real way to gauge the severity of what you're talking about is in relation to the other major party-he made a challenge on the calibration of your claim and you went all nut bag and refused to actually address his argument but instead threw up a bunch of nonsense. I would have walked away, too, since you where acting the fool instead of engaging in actual considered debate.

Not for nothin', dude, but it's a binary system and you included the republicans in your own opening post. The only real way to gauge the severity of what you're talking about is in relation to the other major party-he made a challenge on the calibration of your claim and you went all nut bag and refused to actually address his argument but instead threw up a bunch of nonsense. I would have walked away, too, since you where acting the fool instead of engaging in actual considered debate.

Umm... Look through the crap I spewed out about his whining.


Ugh... This is about the Democrats, not the Republicans. As I said before, the Republicans, while they have multiple sub-parties with different views, they are still able to keep it all together. The Republicans certainly don't have two sub-parties whose views are completely different, like the Democrats.

Then he said:
You said "Republicans, while they have multiple sub-parties with different views, they are still able to keep it all together", while ignoring the hardcore conservative GOP'ers who will vote constitution this November because they feel that Bush&co. stopped talking about the gay marriage issue once the campaign was over. They feel betrayed because they voted for the promise that there would be an amendment, and that promise was never fulfilled.


Now then... The point that I wanted to make but wasn't able to after I read the rest of that post was that just because there's a small amount of people who were orginally republican but voted constitutional on ONE LITTLE GOD DAMNED ISSUE doesn't mean that the republican party is becoming schizmed... Is that even a word? Anyways... Yeah...

It's just the fact that you didn't talk directly to me when saying you want me to respond. That just comes across... Smug around here.


Who made Nalitr the arbiter of forum decorum? Whadda n00b.

Who made Nalitr the arbiter of forum decorum? Whadda n00b.

Seriously Dobbs, when someone acts like your not reading the posts in a thread you made, and then asks the question to someone else even though its a question they want you to respond do, don't you begin to feel that they are smug? In fact, don't all of you? I've spent enough time here to know you that well.

Now then... The point that I wanted to make but wasn't able to after I read the rest of that post was that just because there's a small amount of people who were orginally republican but voted constitutional on ONE LITTLE GOD DAMNED ISSUE doesn't mean that the republican party is becoming schizmed... Is that even a word? Anyways... Yeah...

And what some of us have pointed out is that your construction is horribly flawed, that the Republicans are far more likely to have a schism than the Democrats. Hell, man--I don't even think you've said what you think the fault lines are in the Democratic party. At least I've shown potential fault lines in the Republican party.

Seriously Dobbs, when someone acts like your not reading the posts in a thread you made, and then asks the question to someone else even though its a question they want you to respond do, don't you begin to feel that they are smug? In fact, don't all of you? I've spent enough time here to know you that well.

Look, I've written threads on topics that've provoked debates - threads that were, in some cases, relatively long-lived - and I've written some that have sunk like stones. I'll always try to prop up the sickly ones... for a while at least, but what can you do? Circumstance sometimes operates against you, or it can certainly seem that way. At one time or another, I've been bothered by what you term the 'smugness' of other posters - and at other times, I've been just as smug myself.

But save yourself some grief: don't get bent out of shape about it. Not only is it really not worth it, you'd end up coming off as petty or vindictive, and possibly a little wee too preoccupied with the perceptions of others, perhaps. Look at it this way: at least your thread is still reasonably on-topic. Everything else is just them fidgety bits. Fidgety bits that'll trip you up and knock you down - upon your very fundament - if you let 'em.

Really, take a good, hard look at the democratic party. Can you or can you not tell me that there are two seperate parties in there, possibly more, and that the American Democratic Party will eventually, as in within the next few years, schizm into multiple, smaller parties?

No. Any large party will have sub-parties. I don't feel a lot of strain in between any part of the party (or, you know, at all). In fact, I don't really see any serious strain.

If you want a threatened party, look to the Republicans. Moderates are jumping off left right and center declaring that the GOP needs to spend some time in the woods, and the christian right is slowly begining to return to either the Constitution types or to general apathy.

They've had their great awakening, and now America is seeing what the GOP really stands for. That's tearing apart their constituency. Paleo-Cons are leaving, Church Conservatives are feeling betrayed, and Neo-Cons will stay the course right into a wall, if possible.

Look to the Republican party in Kansas. As red a state as they come, but the Republican moderates in the state are so fed up with the hyper-right that's been dominating their primaries that even a former head of the state Republican party has switched over to the Democratic side. The religious wing of the party is catching on that Republicans pop their heads up every two years, make the right noises, then never actually go through with, say, passing restrictions on abortion that can pass Constitutional muster.

The Democrats are united as they rarely are - opposition to the Republican war in Iraq is virtually unanimous. The issues that they're divided on (gun control, abortion, gay marriage) are the issues that Republicans want them to be concerned with, so that appears to be a split. But Democrats are effectively united on the issues that they really are concerned with - improving the lives of everyday Americans, all 300,000,000 rather than just the million or so who are seeing the gains from Wall Street.

Democrats are always fractious, but generally the core issues that unite them are economic and social. Republicans are usually more disciplined, but their split is on precisely those lines that unite Democrats - the business wing wants their tax cuts and will make fundamentalist noises to appease the religious side around election time, and the religious wing wants their fundie creeds made law and are willing to hold their noses and ally with Mammon for the cause. They're allies of convenience, not united by a common cause.

Look to the Republican party in Kansas. As red a state as they come, but the Republican moderates in the state are so fed up with the hyper-right that's been dominating their primaries that even a former head of the state Republican party has switched over to the Democratic side. The religious wing of the party is catching on that Republicans pop their heads up every two years, make the right noises, then never actually go through with, say, passing restrictions on abortion that can pass Constitutional muster.

The Democrats are united as they rarely are - opposition to the Republican war in Iraq is virtually unanimous. The issues that they're divided on (gun control, abortion, gay marriage) are the issues that Republicans want them to be concerned with, so that appears to be a split. But Democrats are effectively united on the issues that they really are concerned with - improving the lives of everyday Americans, all 300,000,000 rather than just the million or so who are seeing the gains from Wall Street.

Democrats are always fractious, but generally the core issues that unite them are economic and social. Republicans are usually more disciplined, but their split is on precisely those lines that unite Democrats - the business wing wants their tax cuts and will make fundamentalist noises to appease the religious side around election time, and the religious wing wants their fundie creeds made law and are willing to hold their noses and ally with Mammon for the cause. They're allies of convenience, not united by a common cause.
Good example. Kansas is a perfect example of this phenomenon.