Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 02, 2014, 07:29:06 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  Presidential Election Trends (Moderators: Mr. Morden, Bacon King)
| | |-+  Will the Democrats move in the direction of States' rights?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Poll
Question: Will the Democrats move in the direction of States' rights?
Yes
No
Show Pie Chart

Author Topic: Will the Democrats move in the direction of States' rights?  (Read 3021 times)
A18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23836
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

View Profile
« on: November 06, 2004, 09:09:46 am »
Ignore

The Democratic party may move in the direction of state's rights. If so, the Libertarian party should join forces with the Democrats.
Logged
Ben.
Ben
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4219


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: November 06, 2004, 10:28:13 am »
Ignore

Probably not.

If by States Right you mean on economic issues then a definite NO.

However on social issue the national party, as Iíve said repeatedly, is going to have to expect that they are on the wrong side of the divide and that they should accept the states prerogative on issues such as Abortion and Gay Marriage while at the same time they should oppose things such as partial birth abortion at the national level.

The impression of the Democrats as secularists really has to be challenged but at the same time purely cosmetic alternations of emphasis should be coupled with genuine changes of direction on social policy.     
Logged

.Britainís Mayor.
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32036
United States


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: November 06, 2004, 10:51:32 am »
Ignore

If they were smart, yes.  It goes against the Demo tradition of big government. 

My bet is no.
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
DaleC76
Full Member
***
Posts: 181


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: November 06, 2004, 12:27:16 pm »
Ignore

It might be a good idea for them if they did.  It might remove some of their worst campaign issues from being spotlighted in future national elections.  I don't think there will be much support for doing this with the party's core, though.
Logged

No more McShame
FuturePrez R-AZ
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1092


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: November 08, 2004, 02:24:53 am »
Ignore

No, it goes against everything the Democrats stand for.
Logged

Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: 7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.31

My political view's summarized
Frodo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13548
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: May 21, 2010, 09:52:12 pm »
Ignore

With the departure of the bulk of their southern base during the past half-century, the answer is definitively no. 
Logged

Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14388
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

View Profile
« Reply #6 on: May 21, 2010, 11:35:04 pm »
Ignore

Depends on which issue.
Logged

Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31035
France


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -4.87

P P

View Profile
« Reply #7 on: May 22, 2010, 04:21:38 am »
Ignore

LOL, no.
Logged

Quote from: IRC
22:15   ComradeSibboleth   this is all extremely terrible and in all respects absolutely fycking dire.

It really is.



"A reformist is someone who realizes that, when you bang your head on a wall, it's the head that breaks rather than the wall."

Peppino, from the movie Baaria
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4701
United States


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: May 22, 2010, 03:01:28 pm »
Ignore

On some issues like gay marriage so that they don't have to take an unpopular stand. On issues like health care they won't because it means less control for them. So, they will if it benefits them but if not then they'll try to take over themselves.
Logged

I'm Derek and I approve this message.
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4425
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #9 on: May 22, 2010, 08:19:41 pm »
Ignore

I could never see the Democrats returning to a state's rights platform.  Civil rights are completely ingrained into the party and extracting them like that would cause their base to collapse.  Democrats nationally are all about using the federal government to correct real and perceived injustices against those with little to no political and/or economic power.
Logged

Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4701
United States


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: May 22, 2010, 09:32:28 pm »
Ignore

I could never see the Democrats returning to a state's rights platform.  Civil rights are completely ingrained into the party and extracting them like that would cause their base to collapse.  Democrats nationally are all about using the federal government to correct real and perceived injustices against those with little to no political and/or economic power.

Civil rights can mean alot of things such as someone's civil right to not allow someone at their restaurant. After all, you and I have the same right to not allow someone in our home if we choose not to. I don't agree with segregation, but I do not think it's any of the federal government's business.
Logged

I'm Derek and I approve this message.
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28331
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #11 on: May 23, 2010, 01:20:58 pm »
Ignore

Not for at least another fifty years.  States' rights was heavily tarred by the use it was put to by racists.  That isn't to say that they won't embrace Federalist principles when they think they cant't get something done at the National level, but they certainly won't make States' rights a platform plank on its own anytime soon.
Logged

My November ballot:
Ervin(I) Gov.
Sellers(D) Lt. Gov.
Hammond(R) Sec. of State
Diggs(D) Att. Gen.
Herbert(D) Comptroller Gen.
Spearman(R) Supt. of Education
DeFelice(American) Commissioner of Agriculture
Hutto(D) US Sen (full)
Scott(R) US Sen (special)
Geddings(Labor) US House SC-2
Quinn(R) SC House District 69
Yes: Amendment 1 (Gen. Assembly may allow and regulate charity raffles)
No: Amendment 2 (end election of the Adjutant General)
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4425
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #12 on: May 23, 2010, 05:26:02 pm »
Ignore

I could never see the Democrats returning to a state's rights platform.  Civil rights are completely ingrained into the party and extracting them like that would cause their base to collapse.  Democrats nationally are all about using the federal government to correct real and perceived injustices against those with little to no political and/or economic power.

Civil rights can mean alot of things such as someone's civil right to not allow someone at their restaurant. After all, you and I have the same right to not allow someone in our home if we choose not to. I don't agree with segregation, but I do not think it's any of the federal government's business.

It's one thing to not allow someone in your business if they are threatening your customers or causing a disturbance.  It's a completely different matter to deny someone service based on their religion, race, ethnicity, etc.  Also, there are major differences between keeping strangers out of your house and kicking them out of a store.  That's apples and oranges. 

The government has every right to ensure the fair and equal treatment of all citizens.  I don't want to even imagine the kinds of injustices that would still be taking place if we didn't have anti-segregation laws.
Logged

Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4701
United States


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: May 23, 2010, 08:43:48 pm »
Ignore

I could never see the Democrats returning to a state's rights platform.  Civil rights are completely ingrained into the party and extracting them like that would cause their base to collapse.  Democrats nationally are all about using the federal government to correct real and perceived injustices against those with little to no political and/or economic power.

Civil rights can mean alot of things such as someone's civil right to not allow someone at their restaurant. After all, you and I have the same right to not allow someone in our home if we choose not to. I don't agree with segregation, but I do not think it's any of the federal government's business.

It's one thing to not allow someone in your business if they are threatening your customers or causing a disturbance.  It's a completely different matter to deny someone service based on their religion, race, ethnicity, etc.  Also, there are major differences between keeping strangers out of your house and kicking them out of a store.  That's apples and oranges. 

The government has every right to ensure the fair and equal treatment of all citizens.  I don't want to even imagine the kinds of injustices that would still be taking place if we didn't have anti-segregation laws.

I respect your point of view on this matter.
Logged

I'm Derek and I approve this message.
Ameriplan
WilliamSargent
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1211
Faroe Islands


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: June 23, 2010, 11:56:06 pm »
Ignore

no, because that means less control for their handlers in Moscow.
Logged



Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4701
United States


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: June 24, 2010, 12:10:43 am »
Ignore

no, because that means less control for their handlers in Moscow.

So you think they're being run out of Moscow? See I was thinking China or the UN or even Bill Ayers' basement.
Logged

I'm Derek and I approve this message.
Mechaman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13964
Jamaica


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: June 24, 2010, 12:40:03 am »
Ignore

No way.

The Democratic Party has pretty much adopted the slogan: All big government, all the time.  And no, those petty DINOs in places like Oklahoma, Kentucky, and other places don't count since their voices don't mean jack Bo Diddley when talking with the big boys and girls.
Logged



17:20   bore   the point of atlasia is to achieve things which you can then use as pick up lines
Ameriplan
WilliamSargent
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1211
Faroe Islands


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: June 24, 2010, 12:51:31 am »
Ignore

no, because that means less control for their handlers in Moscow.

So you think they're being run out of Moscow? See I was thinking China or the UN or even Bill Ayers' basement.

nope. Moscow. Either that or Riyadh/Islamabad.
Logged



Long titles annoy me
The Obamanation
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5967
United States


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: June 24, 2010, 01:10:45 am »
Ignore

I don't think he'd want them to, him being a Constitutional party member. 

But jokes aside, no.
Logged

I imagine hyphenation, for both spouses, as a sort of custom would very quickly make us all sound like a bunch of bizarrely named English aristocrats. If Peter Flynn marries Beatrice Mendez and has a kid named Anthony, who in turn marries Alice Glazowski-Chanut, their kid would be named Colin Mendez-Flynn-Glazowski-Chanut, who would then marry Beth Harper-Zhang-Rothman-Wald, and their kid would be named...
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4701
United States


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: June 24, 2010, 02:23:00 am »
Ignore

no, because that means less control for their handlers in Moscow.

So you think they're being run out of Moscow? See I was thinking China or the UN or even Bill Ayers' basement.

nope. Moscow. Either that or Riyadh/Islamabad.

lol what about Kenya?
Logged

I'm Derek and I approve this message.
Ameriplan
WilliamSargent
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1211
Faroe Islands


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: June 25, 2010, 12:56:32 am »
Ignore

no, because that means less control for their handlers in Moscow.

So you think they're being run out of Moscow? See I was thinking China or the UN or even Bill Ayers' basement.

nope. Moscow. Either that or Riyadh/Islamabad.

lol what about Kenya?

yeah but only if they have telephones.
Logged



DS0816
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1078
View Profile
« Reply #21 on: June 25, 2010, 05:39:12 am »
Ignore

No way.

The Democratic Party has pretty much adopted the slogan: All big government, all the time.  And no, those petty DINOs in places like Oklahoma, Kentucky, and other places don't count since their voices don't mean jack Bo Diddley when talking with the big boys and girls.

The Democratic Party has adopted the slogan Ö Let's become the Diet Republican party! (The party years before George W. Bush. The Republican Party expanded government. But plenty of their defenders are brainwashed into thinking otherwise.)
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4701
United States


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: June 25, 2010, 10:34:56 am »
Ignore

No way.

The Democratic Party has pretty much adopted the slogan: All big government, all the time.  And no, those petty DINOs in places like Oklahoma, Kentucky, and other places don't count since their voices don't mean jack Bo Diddley when talking with the big boys and girls.

The Democratic Party has adopted the slogan Ö Let's become the Diet Republican party! (The party years before George W. Bush. The Republican Party expanded government. But plenty of their defenders are brainwashed into thinking otherwise.)

We don't think it was good how Bush expanded government either but at the time he had a good argument. The left keeps using Bush as a reflection of everything the GOP has and ever will stand for and it's just not true. Nice try though.
Logged

I'm Derek and I approve this message.
Mechaman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13964
Jamaica


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: June 25, 2010, 12:17:43 pm »
Ignore

No way.

The Democratic Party has pretty much adopted the slogan: All big government, all the time.  And no, those petty DINOs in places like Oklahoma, Kentucky, and other places don't count since their voices don't mean jack Bo Diddley when talking with the big boys and girls.

The Democratic Party has adopted the slogan Ö Let's become the Diet Republican party! (The party years before George W. Bush. The Republican Party expanded government. But plenty of their defenders are brainwashed into thinking otherwise.)

Hey, I'm not denying that the Republican Party is full of hypocrisy (I am anything but a fan of the Grand Old Authoritarian Party) for advocating small government while expanding government beyond what "big goverment liberal" Democrats have.  Bush did oversee the biggest expansion of government since LBJ (maybe even bigger), just saying I don't expect the Democratic Party to have an official "State's Rights" plank in their platform anytime soon (considering how many issues they want to leave up to the federal government).
With the exception of drug laws and gay marriage I can't really think of any other issues that the Democrats are like "yay! State's Rights!"
« Last Edit: June 25, 2010, 12:20:03 pm by Metal Mario »Logged



17:20   bore   the point of atlasia is to achieve things which you can then use as pick up lines
DS0816
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1078
View Profile
« Reply #24 on: June 25, 2010, 05:01:25 pm »
Ignore


We don't think it was good how Bush expanded government either but at the time he had a good argument. The left keeps using Bush as a reflection of everything the GOP has and ever will stand for and it's just not true. Nice try though.

Assuming we refers to the entire Republican Party, this is not convincing. Bush had blind party-liners' support for party's sake. What you write is as good as any out-of-office Republican endorsing, say, same-sex marriage. It doesn't do any good. Nor does it impress. Piss-poor try.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines