Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 15, 2018, 02:42:53 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: New features added! Click here for more information. Click here to configure new features.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: Virginia)
| | |-+  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 4403 times)
A18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23,832
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 06, 2004, 09:09:46 am »

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: 4,211


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 06, 2004, 10:28:13 am »

Probably not.

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

However on social issue the national party, as I’ve 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

J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,134
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 06, 2004, 10:51:32 am »

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 Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 06, 2004, 12:27:16 pm »

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: 1,092


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 08, 2004, 02:24:53 am »

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: 17,281
United States


View Profile WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: May 21, 2010, 09:52:12 pm »

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: 14,005
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: May 21, 2010, 11:35:04 pm »

Depends on which issue.
Logged

SHO MI YOWA BUREIV HAAT
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,721
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: May 22, 2010, 04:21:38 am »

LOL, no.
Logged

"In the end, the world we live in is in darkness."
"That's why... we seek the light."

Noir, episode 26
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,617
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: May 22, 2010, 03:01:28 pm »

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: 4,437
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: May 22, 2010, 08:19:41 pm »

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: 4,617
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: May 22, 2010, 09:32:28 pm »

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: 35,094
United States


View Profile WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: May 23, 2010, 01:20:58 pm »

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

Quote from: Ignatius of Antioch
He that possesses the word of Jesus, is truly able to bear his very silence. — Epistle to the Ephesians 3:21a
The one thing everyone can agree on is that the media is biased against them.
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,437
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: May 23, 2010, 05:26:02 pm »

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: 4,617
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: May 23, 2010, 08:43:48 pm »

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: 1,200
Faroe Islands


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: June 23, 2010, 11:56:06 pm »

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



Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,617
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: June 24, 2010, 12:10:43 am »

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: 13,828
Jamaica
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: June 24, 2010, 12:40:03 am »

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

It's over.
Ameriplan
WilliamSargent
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,200
Faroe Islands


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: June 24, 2010, 12:51:31 am »

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



Moving Day?
The Obamanation
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,865
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: June 24, 2010, 01:10:45 am »

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

But jokes aside, no.
Logged

Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,617
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: June 24, 2010, 02:23:00 am »

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: 1,200
Faroe Islands


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: June 25, 2010, 12:56:32 am »

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: 2,188
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: June 25, 2010, 05:39:12 am »

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 … 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: 4,617
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: June 25, 2010, 10:34:56 am »

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 … 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: 13,828
Jamaica
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: June 25, 2010, 12:17:43 pm »

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 … 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

It's over.
DS0816
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,188
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: June 25, 2010, 05:01:25 pm »


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 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines