Are Democrats flaky?

[JLM]

I'm not talking about the typical run of the mill person who generally votes Democrat but the card carrying, dyed in the wool Democrat. Do they tend to be more interested in personal popularity than moral principle? Are they more interested in personal appearance, than the average "red neck". Do they tend to be wishy washy? I don't believe in tarring everyone with the same brush as there is an exception to every rule, but do Democrats by and large have certain traits? Or do I have the wrong impression?

 

[Curiosity]

JLM

I would think most Democrats are more available to adopting other ideas and are more mobile in their goals than the right side or Conservative side of politics.

Whether this is good or not - I honestly believe a balance of both even to the far right and far left is still the best governance we can expect - as long as all have the same goal: for the betterment of the nation and its people and its standing within the global community.

The middle mix as I call them may have allegiance to differing views rather than being assigned to a political party "name" and this too is good that there are variables among the voters - those who cross the line of future ventures.

As to personal issues I believe the Democratic voters have no more or less issues than the right other than they are adept to change more than the Conservative groups. Of the two groups they are more focused on self determination whereas the right are more centered on group dynamic.

Traits? I believe both major groups share similar ideologies differing from the two major groups, but of late there are huge numbers of people crossing the lines of preference and voting power which must frustrate the pollsters....and I think it is a good thing.

 

[Ron in Regina]

I'm sort'a with Curiosity on this one, but I'd take it a step further. With any
leaning, be it Political or Religious (& I include the Atheists in this group)
or any polarizing issue or stance....there are going to be folks on the
outer edge (one way or the other) that seem to be the most vocal in their
opinions...and this washes everyone with that stance into the appearance
of the same stance as they'll hold some of the opinions that the fringe
does...but not the blind passion found at the edges.

This leads to generalizations made about a position based on the fringes
that pisses off the middle to no end, as it doesn't portray or represent them.
This is one of the biggest headaches as a Moderator on this Forum that we
have to deal with. Fringes are exactly that, and not representative of the
general position except to shyte-disturbers who know better but want to
watch the fur fly.

I know this is not the intention of this Thread or the Member that initiated this
Thread....but a reality that we deal with on an ongoing basis. Common Sense
says that a majority can not be a fringe....but just get painted that way by some
with an agenda.

 

[JLM]

I'm inclined to agree with both Ron and Curiosity. I think when you take the middle of the road Democrat and the middle of the road Republican (I'm talking about the average lunch bucket packing type) they are fairly close in their ideologies. It's among the card carrying, career oriented ones where the difference on the fringes is extreme. On the extreme I think Republicans tend to be a little more down to earth. (If that makes any sense) LOL

 

[lone wolf]

Personally, I think anyone who doesn't look beyond their own self-imposed horizons is flaky

 

[JLM]

Personally, I think anyone who doesn't look beyond their own self-imposed horizons is flaky

Nah, I think you are being a little tough. Lots of good people don't spend time day dreaming beyond their own horizons. Maybe it's because they are not thinkers and maybe it's because they are busy contending with day to day activities that involve doing more than thinking, possibly just doing things like charity work to make others lives more livable. Maybe they are the realists.

 

[Curiosity]

OK I've been mulling this over since I first read this topic.... and I'll put it up just because it's something I often think about.

Why are politicians not given some kind of standardized general test on morality, beliefs, what is "right" in their world, what the future would be like in their world,
etc. etc. There are a myriad of tests for differing personalities and groups and
we as public members have to take "tests" to prove our ability to (for instance) drive an automobile..... ....what about the guys who drive the government?

Because they say the "right things" or "know the right people" or or or.... how in the world does that qualify a human for anything other than being an effective speaker or even worse - a liar? Years in government office? What? Til they are sleeping through long sessions??? Should there be a moratorium on service?

I have a very difficult time adjusting to how we elect people in our western world of democracies... perhaps it is the only way.... but with all the available systems
for getting at the root of someone's character, certainly there has to be more than a lovely speech on the tube or giving a bouquet to an important person....

One would have to be a genius to know all the answers necessary to operate in a totally satisfactory way.... is there a solution..... or do we continue down the trusting path of "acceptable personalities"....who swoon the larger numbers of voters?

I would love to read some responses even if you throw things at me....

 

[lone wolf]

Nah, I think you are being a little tough. Lots of good people don't spend time day dreaming beyond their own horizons. Maybe it's because they are not thinkers and maybe it's because they are busy contending with day to day activities that involve doing more than thinking, possibly just doing things like charity work to make others lives more livable. Maybe they are the realists.

Realists don't usually handicap themselves ... especially if there is a challenge to be met.

 

[Outta here]

.......Why are politicians not given some kind of standardized general test on morality, beliefs, what is "right" in their world, what the future would be like in their world,
etc. etc. There are a myriad of tests for differing personalities and groups and
we as public members have to take "tests" to prove our ability to (for instance) drive an automobile..... ....what about the guys who drive the government?....

Curio, it's a great idea, but I suspect the incumbents would invariably find ways to thwart any sort of screening process - it seems to be the nature of the beast.

What needs to happen is to somehow make it unappealing for the unending supply of shifty-eyed mongrels who are looking for a free ride at the expense of the average voter to seek positions in government. Got any ideas for that? lolll

 

[JLM]

OK I've been mulling this over since I first read this topic.... and I'll put it up just because it's something I often think about.

Why are politicians not given some kind of standardized general test on morality, beliefs, what is "right" in their world, what the future would be like in their world,
etc. etc. There are a myriad of tests for differing personalities and groups and
we as public members have to take "tests" to prove our ability to (for instance) drive an automobile..... ....what about the guys who drive the government?

Because they say the "right things" or "know the right people" or or or.... how in the world does that qualify a human for anything other than being an effective speaker or even worse - a liar? Years in government office? What? Til they are sleeping through long sessions??? Should there be a moratorium on service?

I have a very difficult time adjusting to how we elect people in our western world of democracies... perhaps it is the only way.... but with all the available systems
for getting at the root of someone's character, certainly there has to be more than a lovely speech on the tube or giving a bouquet to an important person....

One would have to be a genius to know all the answers necessary to operate in a totally satisfactory way.... is there a solution..... or do we continue down the trusting path of "acceptable personalities"....who swoon the larger numbers of voters?

I would love to read some responses even if you throw things at me....

There, you've put it in a nutshell why I have such a low opinion of politicians be they Liberal, Conservative, Republican, Democrat or Socialist. Their own "measuring sticks" are based on appearances.

 

[JLM]

Curio, it's a great idea, but I suspect the incumbents would invariably find ways to thwart any sort of screening process - it seems to be the nature of the beast.

What needs to happen is to somehow make it unappealing for the unending supply of shifty-eyed mongrels who are looking for a free ride at the expense of the average voter to seek positions in government. Got any ideas for that? lolll

Yeah, don't vote and get everyone else to do the same................:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

[Machjo]

Well, here's one of the far-right groups in the US:

Welcome to the Project for the New American Century

 

[Icarus27k]

A lot of Democrats are too moralistic to be flaky. They have different morals than Republicans, but they're morals nonetheless. Whereas a Repub may say "Abortion is evil and wrong", a Dem may say "People not having health insurance is evil and wrong".

There are examples of Dems being wishy washy and flaky. Example: some of President Clinton's early governing had this belief that a President should be all things to all people. The philosophy was called triangulation, and the Clintons have always been criticized for it.

But I would make the case that some Repubs have the opposite problem. Making rash decisions without caring what other people think, even if those other people are right. Example: President Bush's claims of an Iraqi WMD threat before the Iraq War.

 

[TenPenny]

Are Democrats flaky?

Let's review the topic of the thread just above this one:
'Rush Limbaugh's new conspiracy theory'....

And you think DEMOCRATS are flaky?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Indeed, the title of the thread shows the bias. The very fact that such a question is asked presupposes the answer ‘yes’ (the Democrats are flaky). Such a poster would never even think of asking the question ‘Are Republicans flaky?’, since they clearly are not, in that poster’s opinion.

There are some posters here who support each and every conservative policy (be it the Conservative Party in Canada or Republican Party in USA), praise Harper or Republicans to high Heaven, trash liberals (or Democrats) non stop as being the spawn of the Devil and then claim with a straight face that they are not conservative (or republican).

Indeed, I have more respect for those who unashamedly proclaim themselves to be Conservative or Republican, who own up to being a Limbaugh dittohead or a Harper acolyte, rather than the hypocritical posters who in fact are Conservative or Republicans and then claim that they are not biased. For them I have nothing but contempt.

 

[lone wolf]

There is one poster here who unashamedly labels everyone who does not eat, sleep and breathe policies that strictly mirror his own as right-wing, Conservative or Republican

 

[JLM]

There is one poster here who unashamedly labels everyone who does not eat, sleep and breathe policies that strictly mirror his own as right-wing, Conservative or Republican

Now that I think about it, I guess I've noticed that too.

 

[JLM]

A lot of people who bash one party or the other or all parties, in most cases aren't of any political persuasion themselves, speaking for myself I see the contemptability of all of them. Some people just bash the party in power at the time. As for the title of this thread, I wouldn't know how else to ask the question as the intent was to find out if people think the Dems are flaky................not that the person asking necessarily thinks they are. I have to admit that when you see a few who are you do start to wonder if that isn't a trend in the party.

 

[Said1]

Flakiness isn't political affiliation specific.

 

[JLM]

Flakiness isn't political affiliation specific.

That is for damn sure. But that is not to say that some parties don't have more of a preponderance for it than others............:lol::lol::lol: