What are the ideological inconsistencies within the Democratic Party?

[barfbag]

They're supposedly against wiretapping and spy programs but support V chips being implanted in everyone.

What the heck is a "V chip"?

Chips inserted into babies at birth so the government knows where we're at at all times.

[traininthedistance]

About gentrification, since the left seems to be against both gentrification and suburban development (not to mention suburbanites who are against the suburbs), if I am a young educated adult moving to a new city, where am I supposed to live?

I guess I'm not "the left" since I have defended gentrification as the lesser evil several times here... but I would like to see wholescale upzoning and redevelopment in our cities.  For example, Cleveland had over 900,000 residents at one point; if we rebuilt enough housing there to fit 900K people there'd be enough supply for plenty of yuppies without pushing out people who depend on the cheap rents to live.

And, let's be honest, inner suburbs can often be good places, too.  You didn't really start to go whole-hog on the "make everything windy, chokepoint-filled, segregated-from-everything cul-de-sacs and eliminate any walkable neighborhood businesses/schools/institutions" development pattern until the '70s or so.  Older suburban areas, while not where I would personally choose to live right now, definitely have some good points to them and I'm happy to see them thrive, grow, and redevelop as well.

[The Free North]

Bush: Goes to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, uses drone strikes

Reaction from liberals: Riots in the streets of major cities, calls for his impeachment, bush=war criminal, bush is an evil murdering maniac

Obama: Continues war in Afghanistan, escalates drone strikes, starts war in Libya, kills more civilians than bush did

Reaction from liberals:

[TNF]

They're supposedly against wiretapping and spy programs but support V chips being implanted in everyone.

What the heck is a "V chip"?

Barfbag is posting from 1996, you'll have to forgive him.

[bedstuy]

Bush: Goes to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, uses drone strikes

Reaction from liberals: Riots in the streets of major cities, calls for his impeachment, bush=war criminal, bush is an evil murdering maniac

Obama: Continues war in Afghanistan, escalates drone strikes, starts war in Libya, kills more civilians than bush did

You are being extremely disingenuous or ignorant.

Liberals are not the same as anarchists or leftists.  The people who said Bush was a war criminal and vociferously opposed Bush administration on its War on Terror policies were not mainstream liberals.  Dennis Kucinich and Barbara Lee are not the leadership of the Democratic Party.  Dennis Kucincih types certainly attacked Bush and made some intemperate and dumb statements in my opinion.  But, those same left-wing people have actually been very hard on President Obama on the same issues. 

On the other hand, liberals have generally supported both administrations, except for when the Iraq War became an unmitigated disaster.  John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle, Harry Reid were not in the streets throwing Molotov cocktails.  Also, there were no riots in the streets of major cities in opposition to Bush's foreign policy.  There were a few milquetoast peaceful protests by hippies and assorted misfits and ragamuffins.  Get your facts straight.

You're also ignoring the fact that Obama ended the War in Iraq and is winding down the War in Afghanistan.  I agree too slowly on both counts, but John McCain was arguing we should stay in Iraq indefinitely back in 2008.  So, Obama did a decent job considering that he's a mainstream US politician.

Also, Obama didn't really start the Civil War in Libya, did he now?  On top of that, there was fairly limited US involvement.  To compare the intervention in Libya to Iraq is laughable.  We're talking about over 3,500 US troop fatalities versus 0 US troop fatalities.

And, by what measure has President Obama killed more civilians than President Bush?  The Iraq War outpaces drone strikes by orders of magnitude in terms of civilian casualties. 

You're also ignoring the real ways President Obama has reeled in the torture, saber rattling and scare tactics used by the Bush administration.

[TNF]

Bush: Goes to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, uses drone strikes

Reaction from liberals: Riots in the streets of major cities, calls for his impeachment, bush=war criminal, bush is an evil murdering maniac

Obama: Continues war in Afghanistan, escalates drone strikes, starts war in Libya, kills more civilians than bush did

You are being extremely disingenuous or ignorant.

Liberals are not the same as anarchists or leftists.  The people who said Bush was a war criminal and vociferously opposed Bush administration on its War on Terror policies were not mainstream liberals.  Dennis Kucinich and Barbara Lee are not the leadership of the Democratic Party.  Dennis Kucincih types certainly attacked Bush and made some intemperate and dumb statements in my opinion.  But, those same left-wing people have actually been very hard on President Obama on the same issues. 

On the other hand, liberals have generally supported both administrations, except for when the Iraq War became an unmitigated disaster.  John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle, Harry Reid were not in the streets throwing Molotov cocktails.  Also, there were no riots in the streets of major cities in opposition to Bush's foreign policy.  There were a few milquetoast peaceful protests by hippies and assorted misfits and ragamuffins.  Get your facts straight.

You're also ignoring the fact that Obama ended the War in Iraq and is winding down the War in Afghanistan.  I agree too slowly on both counts, but John McCain was arguing we should stay in Iraq indefinitely back in 2008.  So, Obama did a decent job considering that he's a mainstream US politician.

Also, Obama didn't really start the Civil War in Libya, did he now?  On top of that, there was fairly limited US involvement.  To compare the intervention in Libya to Iraq is laughable.  We're talking about over 3,500 US troop fatalities versus 0 US troop fatalities.

And, by what measure has President Obama killed more civilians than President Bush?  The Iraq War outpaces drone strikes by orders of magnitude in terms of civilian casualties. 

You're also ignoring the real ways President Obama has reeled in the torture, saber rattling and scare tactics used by the Bush administration.

I think that first bolded statement pretty much sums up everything wrong with American liberalism. The fact that liberals went along with and in many ways made possible really terrible post-9/11 policies like the PATRIOT Act, like the Iraq War, etc. pretty much undermines the entire credibility of American liberalism when it seeks to distance itself from those same policies. American liberals marched in lockstep with Bush/Cheney in the immediate aftermath of September 11th, and while a bit of that is understandable given the political climate, the fact that this continued in spite of widespread evidence that Bush and his criminal administration was lying the nation into a completely pointless war in Iraq is pretty disgusting.

Obama actually campaigned on expanding and then actually did expand the War in Afghanistan. Winding down the war as he has has largely been the result of pushback in Congress, not Obama's own initiative in that regard. And the John McCain line was clearly one taken out of context, as he was referring to America's seemingly indefinite occupations of South Korea, Japan, Germany, etc. That's partisan nonsense to claim it was otherwise. Lest we also forget that Obama only left Iraq because the Iraqis literally kicked the United States out.

What exactly was the point of American intervention in Libya, though? Obviously in retrospect it worked out, but that wasn't clear going into the conflict. Aside from that, the money spent on dropping bombs on Libya would probably have been better spent on rebuilding American infrastructure, employing people, etc.

Obama has done next to nothing to 'reel in torture'. His promise to close down Guantanamo Bay was broken literally a week into his administration. If anything he has upped the ante in the saber-rattling with Iran and North Korea so as not to appear 'weak' to his Republican opponents.

[bedstuy]

Bush: Goes to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, uses drone strikes

Reaction from liberals: Riots in the streets of major cities, calls for his impeachment, bush=war criminal, bush is an evil murdering maniac

Obama: Continues war in Afghanistan, escalates drone strikes, starts war in Libya, kills more civilians than bush did

You are being extremely disingenuous or ignorant.

Liberals are not the same as anarchists or leftists.  The people who said Bush was a war criminal and vociferously opposed Bush administration on its War on Terror policies were not mainstream liberals.  Dennis Kucinich and Barbara Lee are not the leadership of the Democratic Party.  Dennis Kucincih types certainly attacked Bush and made some intemperate and dumb statements in my opinion.  But, those same left-wing people have actually been very hard on President Obama on the same issues. 

On the other hand, liberals have generally supported both administrations, except for when the Iraq War became an unmitigated disaster.  John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle, Harry Reid were not in the streets throwing Molotov cocktails.  Also, there were no riots in the streets of major cities in opposition to Bush's foreign policy.  There were a few milquetoast peaceful protests by hippies and assorted misfits and ragamuffins.  Get your facts straight.

You're also ignoring the fact that Obama ended the War in Iraq and is winding down the War in Afghanistan.  I agree too slowly on both counts, but John McCain was arguing we should stay in Iraq indefinitely back in 2008.  So, Obama did a decent job considering that he's a mainstream US politician.

Also, Obama didn't really start the Civil War in Libya, did he now?  On top of that, there was fairly limited US involvement.  To compare the intervention in Libya to Iraq is laughable.  We're talking about over 3,500 US troop fatalities versus 0 US troop fatalities.

And, by what measure has President Obama killed more civilians than President Bush?  The Iraq War outpaces drone strikes by orders of magnitude in terms of civilian casualties. 

You're also ignoring the real ways President Obama has reeled in the torture, saber rattling and scare tactics used by the Bush administration.

I think that first bolded statement pretty much sums up everything wrong with American liberalism. The fact that liberals went along with and in many ways made possible really terrible post-9/11 policies like the PATRIOT Act, like the Iraq War, etc. pretty much undermines the entire credibility of American liberalism when it seeks to distance itself from those same policies. American liberals marched in lockstep with Bush/Cheney in the immediate aftermath of September 11th, and while a bit of that is understandable given the political climate, the fact that this continued in spite of widespread evidence that Bush and his criminal administration was lying the nation into a completely pointless war in Iraq is pretty disgusting.

Obama actually campaigned on expanding and then actually did expand the War in Afghanistan. Winding down the war as he has has largely been the result of pushback in Congress, not Obama's own initiative in that regard. And the John McCain line was clearly one taken out of context, as he was referring to America's seemingly indefinite occupations of South Korea, Japan, Germany, etc. That's partisan nonsense to claim it was otherwise. Lest we also forget that Obama only left Iraq because the Iraqis literally kicked the United States out.

What exactly was the point of American intervention in Libya, though? Obviously in retrospect it worked out, but that wasn't clear going into the conflict. Aside from that, the money spent on dropping bombs on Libya would probably have been better spent on rebuilding American infrastructure, employing people, etc.

Obama has done next to nothing to 'reel in torture'. His promise to close down Guantanamo Bay was broken literally a week into his administration. If anything he has upped the ante in the saber-rattling with Iran and North Korea so as not to appear 'weak' to his Republican opponents.

Just not true.  There was an initial troop increase to attempt to restore a semblance of order in Afghanistan, with an explicit plan to withdraw troops afterwards.  Since then, the policy has been dictated by President Obama, senior White House officials and the military's top brass.  Congress doesn't even have a unified position to push on the President.  I personally disagree with President Obama's slow withdrawal from Afghanistan.  But, it's just untrue to claim we would be at 2009 troop levels, but for the leadership of Congress.   

The 100 years comment is not what I'm referring to.  John McCain's policy in 2008 was to maintain US troop levels in Iraq.  Obama's policy was to start a withdrawal of US troops in 2009.

On Libya, the purpose of the NATO action was humanitarian intervention.  And I would argue that the reason it didn't become a trillion dollar, bloody quagmire wasn't just luck.  It was the policy and leadership of the White House in creating a specific limited mission and executing it.  This is in distinction to the Bush War in Iraq which was characterized by poor planning, a vague mission and shoddy leadership. 

On torture, Obama made it explicit US policy not to torture and revoked the legal cover provided by the Bush Justice Department.  On the general climate of fear, it has changed.  The Bush administration constantly used 9/11 as a political tactic and suggested Democrats were unpatriotic.  The Obama administration is far less Machiavellian in that regard.

[barfbag]

Bush: Goes to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, uses drone strikes

Reaction from liberals: Riots in the streets of major cities, calls for his impeachment, bush=war criminal, bush is an evil murdering maniac

Obama: Continues war in Afghanistan, escalates drone strikes, starts war in Libya, kills more civilians than bush did

You are being extremely disingenuous or ignorant.

Liberals are not the same as anarchists or leftists.  The people who said Bush was a war criminal and vociferously opposed Bush administration on its War on Terror policies were not mainstream liberals.  Dennis Kucinich and Barbara Lee are not the leadership of the Democratic Party.  Dennis Kucincih types certainly attacked Bush and made some intemperate and dumb statements in my opinion.  But, those same left-wing people have actually been very hard on President Obama on the same issues. 

On the other hand, liberals have generally supported both administrations, except for when the Iraq War became an unmitigated disaster.  John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle, Harry Reid were not in the streets throwing Molotov cocktails.  Also, there were no riots in the streets of major cities in opposition to Bush's foreign policy.  There were a few milquetoast peaceful protests by hippies and assorted misfits and ragamuffins.  Get your facts straight.

You're also ignoring the fact that Obama ended the War in Iraq and is winding down the War in Afghanistan.  I agree too slowly on both counts, but John McCain was arguing we should stay in Iraq indefinitely back in 2008.  So, Obama did a decent job considering that he's a mainstream US politician.

Also, Obama didn't really start the Civil War in Libya, did he now?  On top of that, there was fairly limited US involvement.  To compare the intervention in Libya to Iraq is laughable.  We're talking about over 3,500 US troop fatalities versus 0 US troop fatalities.

And, by what measure has President Obama killed more civilians than President Bush?  The Iraq War outpaces drone strikes by orders of magnitude in terms of civilian casualties. 

You're also ignoring the real ways President Obama has reeled in the torture, saber rattling and scare tactics used by the Bush administration.

I think that first bolded statement pretty much sums up everything wrong with American liberalism. The fact that liberals went along with and in many ways made possible really terrible post-9/11 policies like the PATRIOT Act, like the Iraq War, etc. pretty much undermines the entire credibility of American liberalism when it seeks to distance itself from those same policies. American liberals marched in lockstep with Bush/Cheney in the immediate aftermath of September 11th, and while a bit of that is understandable given the political climate, the fact that this continued in spite of widespread evidence that Bush and his criminal administration was lying the nation into a completely pointless war in Iraq is pretty disgusting.

Obama actually campaigned on expanding and then actually did expand the War in Afghanistan. Winding down the war as he has has largely been the result of pushback in Congress, not Obama's own initiative in that regard. And the John McCain line was clearly one taken out of context, as he was referring to America's seemingly indefinite occupations of South Korea, Japan, Germany, etc. That's partisan nonsense to claim it was otherwise. Lest we also forget that Obama only left Iraq because the Iraqis literally kicked the United States out.

What exactly was the point of American intervention in Libya, though? Obviously in retrospect it worked out, but that wasn't clear going into the conflict. Aside from that, the money spent on dropping bombs on Libya would probably have been better spent on rebuilding American infrastructure, employing people, etc.

Obama has done next to nothing to 'reel in torture'. His promise to close down Guantanamo Bay was broken literally a week into his administration. If anything he has upped the ante in the saber-rattling with Iran and North Korea so as not to appear 'weak' to his Republican opponents.

Just not true.  There was an initial troop increase to attempt to restore a semblance of order in Afghanistan, with an explicit plan to withdraw troops afterwards.  Since then, the policy has been dictated by President Obama, senior White House officials and the military's top brass.  Congress doesn't even have a unified position to push on the President.  I personally disagree with President Obama's slow withdrawal from Afghanistan.  But, it's just untrue to claim we would be at 2009 troop levels, but for the leadership of Congress.   

The 100 years comment is not what I'm referring to.  John McCain's policy in 2008 was to maintain US troop levels in Iraq.  Obama's policy was to start a withdrawal of US troops in 2009.

On Libya, the purpose of the NATO action was humanitarian intervention.  And I would argue that the reason it didn't become a trillion dollar, bloody quagmire wasn't just luck.  It was the policy and leadership of the White House in creating a specific limited mission and executing it.  This is in distinction to the Bush War in Iraq which was characterized by poor planning, a vague mission and shoddy leadership. 

On torture, Obama made it explicit US policy not to torture and revoked the legal cover provided by the Bush Justice Department.  On the general climate of fear, it has changed.  The Bush administration constantly used 9/11 as a political tactic and suggested Democrats were unpatriotic.  The Obama administration is far less Machiavellian in that regard.

So Democrats are good and Republicans are bad? I think your post is entirely partisan. Do you think there is the slightest chance that Democrats may not be perfect?

[Blue3]

Any other (new or not) contradictions?

[AggregateDemand]

Any other (new or not) contradictions?

The biggest inconsistency is that Democrats seem incapable of understanding the relationship between the public and private sector. The public sector is supposed to accomplish the existential tasks of promoting general welfare, insuring domestic tranquility, and provide for the common defense. Meanwhile, private corporations are designed almost exclusively to maximize profit and increase material resources.

Naturally, Democrats try to dump all of the existential social work on corporate America with counterproductive min wage laws, unemployment insurance taxes, employer healthcare mandates, pension laws, defense cuts (employment instability), etc etc. Then Democrats embark on a foolhardy strategy to command the economy with new spending programs and money supply mismanagement, most of which mimic deadweight economic loss because they do nothing for workers.

But for a brief moment in time, when Hoover was asleep at the switch, Democrats have been perpetually dazed and confused. They don't have anything to offer, unless you like divisive cultural warfare.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Pretend to give a sh**t about the non rich, and then  them over with TPP.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Naturally, Democrats try to dump all of the existential social work on corporate America with counterproductive min wage laws, unemployment insurance taxes, employer healthcare mandates, pension laws, defense cuts (employment instability), etc etc.

As opposed to the Republicans, who don't want to have it done at all. Right.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Consistency is overrated. I call it inflexibility.

[AggregateDemand]

As opposed to the Republicans, who don't want to have it done at all. Right.

Republicans have a problem optimizing the relationship between government and private markets, but they don't have a fundamental misunderstanding.

Furthermore, what Republican president has ever cut social spending? Perhaps they've succeeded in reducing the increase in social spending, but they've never cut real spending to my knowledge. It takes TEA Party levels of zealotry just to get a dialogue started about social reforms.

The imagined transgressions of cold-hearted Republicans pale in comparison to the things Democrats have done and actively support. Killing the biggest jobs program in the history of the US is a prime example.

[Ebsy]

Killing the biggest jobs program in the history of the US is a prime example.

I hope to god you aren't referring to the Keystone XL Pipeline.

[AggregateDemand]

I hope to god you aren't referring to the Keystone XL Pipeline.

I hope to god you know I'm talking about the military

[Ebsy]

I hope to god you aren't referring to the Keystone XL Pipeline.

I hope to god you know I'm talking about the military

How did Obama destroy the military?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I hope to god you aren't referring to the Keystone XL Pipeline.

I hope to god you know I'm talking about the military

Maybe the U.S. could start paying people to dig holes and fill them in again.

[AggregateDemand]

Maybe the U.S. could start paying people to dig holes and fill them in again.

Even if that were an accurate portrayal of military productivity, how would it compare unfavorably to Welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, SNAP?

The military is an R&D factory, particularly for aerospace, and it secures global commerce. The military also trains healthcare professionals, logistics experts, and other valuable professions.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I hope to god you aren't referring to the Keystone XL Pipeline.

I hope to god you know I'm talking about the military

Maybe the U.S. could start paying people to dig holes and fill them in again.

Here this is called "transportation funding."

[CountryClassSF]

"BAN SMOKING! BAN PLASTIC BAGS! SODA TAX! CIGARETTE TAX! BAN HATE SPEECH!" vs. "LEGALIZE POT! LEGALIZE GAY MARRIAGE!"

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

Having blue collar union members who favor things like energy independence, economic development over the environment and environmentalists in the same party.

[Thunderbird is the word]

"My body, my choice!" "Unlike the Christian Right we don't believe in telling you how to live your life and getting into your bedroom!" Except when it comes to smoking, junk food, violent video games, music with explicit lyrics
, affirmative consent laws etc
I also find it ironic as more of an old school populist that doesn't give a sh**t about deficits that the arguments for taxing the sh**t out of things that are bad for you oftentimes revolves around long-term public health costs and fundamentally is fiscally conservative. Yes large sodas and cigarettes are bad for you, so is unprotected sex but ultimately I value personal freedom above long term fiscal calculations.

"We believe in progressive taxation!" Except that oftentimes instead of simply raising taxes on the rich they'll just slap a bullsh**t sin tax on tobacco to fund a program.

"We care about the working class!" But if they don't vote for us they're a bunch of ungreatful, uneducated racists, that can be the only explanation.

[Thunderbird is the word]

For what it's worth I'm pretty solidly to the left of the Democratic Party.

[bedstuy]

"My body, my choice!" "Unlike the Christian Right we don't believe in telling you how to live your life and getting into your bedroom!" Except when it comes to smoking, junk food, violent video games, music with explicit lyrics

What are you talking about?  Video games and music with explicit lyrics are not a political issue at the moment.  The internet made that an obsolete discussion almost 20 years ago.  Junk food and smoking are both unhealthy, but Democrats don't want to ban either.

Actually, when it comes to sin taxes, that's more the fault of Republicans.  They've demonized taxes so much that governments try to get as creative as possible to get revenue.  Alcohol and smoking are easy targets because the public views them as vices, and Republicans can call them "fees" instead of taxes.