Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 06 Sep '12 05:19
    Can anyone tell me why the Democrats tried to remove God out of their party platform and then declare Jesusalem was not the capital of Israel, and then decide to keep it? It's like the desperately want to do something but then realize it is politically damaging to do it so they reverse course and look even more stupid.

    How embarrassing.
  2. 06 Sep '12 05:38
    What do you mean, "tried to"?
  3. 06 Sep '12 09:45
    Originally posted by whodey
    Can anyone tell me why the Democrats tried to remove God out of their party platform and then declare Jesusalem was not the capital of Israel, and then decide to keep it? It's like the desperately want to do something but then realize it is politically damaging to do it so they reverse course and look even more stupid.

    How embarrassing.
    First off, the episode does seem to have been embarrassing. A piece of political show to appease religious and specifically Jewish voters that was rejected by convention go-ers.

    Second, the OP is again a nice piece of Whodey-esque misinformation. The democrats never declared "that Jerusalem was not the capital of Israel". Not stating something in your party program does not mean that you are saying the opposite is true. I'm quite sure that the democrat party program does not say that your forum name is "whodey", yet stating that democrats declared you are not named whodey is a bit silly isn't it ?
  4. 06 Sep '12 12:43 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Barts
    First off, the episode does seem to have been embarrassing. A piece of political show to appease religious and specifically Jewish voters that was rejected by convention go-ers.

    Second, the OP is again a nice piece of Whodey-esque misinformation. The democrats never declared "that Jerusalem was not the capital of Israel". Not stating something in your part y", yet stating that democrats declared you are not named whodey is a bit silly isn't it ?
    Indeed. It appears that Obama intervened directly to make the changes in the party platform, assumingly to appeal to Christians and Jews. In and of itself the platform theme is meaningless, rather, it's only symbolic.

    I say that this back fires on Obama. Had he not made the changes no one would have raised the issue. However, now the GOP can say that the DNC is "out of touch" with a nation who by in large believes in God. It also points to the strained relations Obama has with the Jewish voters. It seems rather desperate.

    BTW: What do you get when you remove God from the Democrat party?

    Answer: You get the Democrat party.
  5. 06 Sep '12 12:56
    I'm sure the change in the party platform between 08' and 12' in regard to Jerusalem and religion would be brought up by the republicans anyway. Politically, Obama had to take the risk of bringing it up at the party conference, it backfired, but it was probably the right move.
  6. 06 Sep '12 13:02
    Originally posted by Barts
    I'm sure the change in the party platform between 08' and 12' in regard to Jerusalem and religion would be brought up by the republicans anyway. Politically, Obama had to take the risk of bringing it up at the party conference, it backfired, but it was probably the right move.
    Well the man is desperate. In 2008 all he had to do was run against "W", but now he has to run on his record. In fact, they campaign as though Obama has not been president for 4 years.

    If Obama thinks he can appeal to Christians by this symbolic change he is daft. I dare say the same for Jews.
  7. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    06 Sep '12 13:56
    Originally posted by Barts
    First off, the episode does seem to have been embarrassing. A piece of political show to appease religious and specifically Jewish voters that was rejected by convention go-ers.

    Second, the OP is again a nice piece of Whodey-esque misinformation. The democrats never declared "that Jerusalem was not the capital of Israel". Not stating something in your part ...[text shortened]... y", yet stating that democrats declared you are not named whodey is a bit silly isn't it ?
    When you affirmatively remove something (especially something with no practical effect) from a platform, it's pretty darn close to a declaration that it is untrue.

    The Dems are so phony on this issue it's unbelievable. First they remove it then they realize the political blowback so they try to put it back on. Only problem is a majority of the delegates (or at least half) don't agree. No way putting it back on the agenda would have gotten a 2/3 majority if they'd have voted on it. The nos were louder than they ayes and the boos drowned out the cheers afterwards.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSxEy_OVVB4

    Your attack on the OP is nonsensical. That the OP's forum name is "whodey" was not removed from the platform after having been there previously and they didn't break their own rules for all the world to see to minimize political blowback on the issue of whodey's handle.

    What a bunch of phonies! Sheesh! Have the guts to state your actual position.
  8. 06 Sep '12 13:57
    I know you like the "Obama is desperate" narrative, but he's still well ahead in the polls. He has no reason to panic.

    As to whether or not he'll convince anyone with this move, I'm constantly surprised as to what apparently matters to voters in elections. I'm sure at least some people will be reassured by this symbolic gesture.
  9. 06 Sep '12 13:59
    Originally posted by sh76
    . No way putting it back on the agenda would have gotten a 2/3 majority if they'd have voted on it. The nos were louder than they ayes and the boos drowned out the cheers afterwards.

    .
    Obama no longer needs our votes. He rules by edict now.
  10. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    06 Sep '12 13:59
    Originally posted by Barts
    I know you like the "Obama is desperate" narrative, but he's still well ahead in the polls. He has no reason to panic.

    As to whether or not he'll convince anyone with this move, I'm constantly surprised as to what apparently matters to voters in elections. I'm sure at least some people will be reassured by this symbolic gesture.
    Obama is not desperate of course. He has a solid lead and will probably win.

    That gesture was a disaster. They'd have been better off not discussing it at all. As it is, they exposed both their true feeling and their hypocrisy.

    Obama will still win the election, but in spite of that disgrace, not because of it.
  11. 06 Sep '12 14:11 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    When you affirmatively remove something (especially something with no practical effect) from a platform, it's pretty darn close to a declaration that it is untrue.

    The Dems are so phony on this issue it's unbelievable. First they remove it then they realize the political blowback so they try to put it back on. Only problem is a majority of the delegates (or 's handle.

    What a bunch of phonies! Sheesh! Have the guts to state your actual position.
    When you affirmatively remove something (especially something with no practical effect) from a platform, it's pretty darn close to a declaration that it is untrue.

    Not even close. You could say it is a statement by the DNC that they will be less vigorous in their support of Israel's view on Jerusalem (though even then I'd wait until it is corroborated by actual actions). However, if you say it's a statement that the DNC thinks Jerusalem should (is) not the capital of Israel, you're saying that they're more or less switching their support from Israel to the Palestinians, which is more than a small stretch at best, deliberate misrepresentation at worst.
  12. 06 Sep '12 14:12
    Originally posted by sh76
    Obama is not desperate of course. He has a solid lead and will probably win.

    That gesture was a disaster. They'd have been better off not discussing it at all. As it is, they exposed both their true feeling and their hypocrisy.

    Obama will still win the election, but in spite of that disgrace, not because of it.
    Obama will win because he is a Chicago hoodlim.

    Just be careful what you wish for Democrats. You may actually get it.
  13. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    06 Sep '12 14:14
    Originally posted by Barts
    [b]When you affirmatively remove something (especially something with no practical effect) from a platform, it's pretty darn close to a declaration that it is untrue.

    Not even close. You could say it is a statement by the DNC that they will be less vigorous in their support of Israel's view on Jerusalem (though even then I'd wait until it is corroborate ...[text shortened]... inians, which is more than a small stretch at best, deliberate misrepresentation at worst.[/b]
    However, if you say it's a statement that the DNC thinks Jerusalem should (is) not the capital of Israel, you're saying that they're more or less switching their support from Israel to the Palestinians, which is more than a small stretch at best, deliberate misrepresentation at worst.


    Come on, dude. Surely you can see that is a complete non-sequitur. You can support Israel thoroughly and still believe that Tel Aviv should be its capital in the interest of maintaining or furthering the chance of securing peace with the Palestinians.

    I think that if you carefully read your own posts on this thread with an critical eye, you might agree that you'd probably have been better off sitting out this thread.
  14. 06 Sep '12 14:25
    Originally posted by sh76
    They'd have been better off not discussing it at all.
    That's pretty much what I agree with.

    I wish a party did have the cojones to have no mention of God in their platform. I would love it.
  15. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    06 Sep '12 14:38
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    That's pretty much what I agree with.

    I wish a party did have the cojones to have no mention of God in their platform. I would love it.
    Same here. I have no problem with religion, but I'd rather the politicians not rub God in people's faces.

    Also, especially in the Dem party, it would be refreshingly honest.