For just a second.. lets imagine that McCain and Palin won and the Republicans were still in power.

I do not think we would still have a country.

All of the stuff that we as Democrats have had to deal with would have been left to fester with the Republicans..

I am not going to do a look at what we have accomplished thread.. anyone with half a brain, knows how far we have come and all we have done.

Just for a moment, looking at what might have been if we had gone the other way.

I will start it off..

1. Economically we would be keeping the tax cuts for the wealthiest that is getting ready to expire..and no attempt would have been made to reign in Wall Street.. and we would be in the middle of a big "D" Depression

Yeah, golly, I feel way better.

either Iran, Russia, North Korea or maybe all three.

What purpose does this thread serve? Why don't you just come out & tell those of us who object Obama's status quo policies to sit down & shut up.

Don't worry, we're used to it. Even though we don't listen. ;)

Oh, & those tax cuts haven't expired yet.

unrec

& on this particular issue, it's divisive & inflammatory.

But hey, knock yourself out.

inflammatory?

you're pitting a group who believes one thing against a group who believes another thing, over an event that did not happen. This is your version of "So I guess you wanted McCain to win." x(

And this line: "...anyone with half a brain, knows how far we have come and all we have done." That's just insulting. This type of post doesn't correlate with your screen name.

Edit to add..

How anyone could take offense at anything in that op is beyond me.

Sorry. I couldn't resist. }(

Do you honestly think I wasn't gonna swing at that softball?
:evilgrin:

Have not gone away. This moronic type hasn't gone away since we believed we nipped it in the bud during the Nixon years and they will be here for years to come. Cheney is a Nixon era figure. He and his ilk will be more than willing to show you what if in the next several election cycles if you continue to believe analyzing the "what ifs" are a waste of time.

It is in times of crisis, when everyone needs to keep their wits about them, that the same people who created the mess creep back into power. I've seen it over and over and over again. Because the tendency is to blame those who are in power for creating the circumstances that allowed for these major messes. Unfortunately the result is those who caused it become the only alternative for those who don't pay attention and soon they are back in power.

In terms of the oil spill, the Bush administration laid out the groundwork for this mess, more specifically Dick Cheney did. The current administration is not equipped to stop this leak because the "what ifs" were not put in place by those who put the current rules in place. (The Bush administration, not the Obama administration). Neither is BP. There has NEVER been a Business Continuation Plan in place, because none of the crooks who have caused it had the foresight or did they care about the "what ifs".

"What ifs" would have prevented this crisis. So, no, "what ifs" are not a waste of time. In this situation nor in considering what would happen with alternative political leaders.

Also, your comment about it being divisive to consider the what ifs had McCain been in power seems to suggest that we need to agree with you or it is inflammatory. Because no where in rational thought would someone believe that being relieved that McCain and Palin are not in power or that considering the what ifs of that scenario is inflammatory on a board called "Democratic Underground".

One should always be considering the what ifs of who you vote to put in power. Always. ESPECIALLY in times of great emotion, frustration and crisis.

when looking to the future. And yes, we definitely need to review history to evaluate the possibilities of what can happen & how to deal with it. But we need to view the reality of history, not what might have been.

What if McCain/Palin won? Who cares? They didn't.
What if Cheney's secret energy talks had been public? Who cares? They weren't.
What if John Kerry had fought vigorously against the election fraud of Ohio in 2004? Who cares? He didn't.

Let's deal with reality as it is today, review history as it really happened, & forget about what might have been.

You have to look at the past to understand what might happen in the future. It makes perfect sense to discuss the alternatives in terms of what might have happened because we are responsible to elect our leaders. We need to understand the ramification of our choices. It is absolutely important to discuss the what ifs and to look at history in doing so.

Obama is not perfect, but he is also no where near as bad as some on this board say he is. It is a good exercise to understand what might have happened if McCain and Palin were in the White House to put things into perspective and to not react with so much emotion that we make really bad political choices in the future. We need to remain diligent about keeping the McCains and Palins of the world out of the White House.

I think Obama is a "behind the scenes" kind of leader and not necessarily in a bad way. Some assume that because he isn't as transparent as they would like him to be that he is not trying to work in the best interest of the people, his voters and the country. That is what they have learned from history. But history has nuances you also need to learn from. I have learned from Obama that he works behind the scenes in order leave room for resolution. He's said so many times publicly that if you demonize the people you need to work with, you can no longer work with them, because you won't want to be seen working with demons. I have also learned that he successful by doing this.

We are now learning that Obama was nearly alone in the WH and with the senate leadership in getting any kind of health care passed. Many on the left complained that he was a sellout to corporations for not introducing single payer and the public option. Now it is clear that he would have never gotten anything passed, any foundation for the future, if he had done that. But not once did you hear him say that he was virtually alone on this and use it as an excuse to quit or to tell people to give up.

I'm not convinced by anyone that he is some big corporatist monster working hand-in-hand with the greedy to screw Americans. In fact, I doubt that very much. He is fighting, he's just doing it in a world that is stacked against the way he wants to fight. He's not as much of a politician as he is a leader. And we have not had one of those for a very long time.

"what if" posts/threads.

It might not come right out and say it, but most of what people post about is "what if" this were to happen, or that would happen?

very few people who post here post about things as they are and how they could be rectified...there are very few actual "plan" posts, and when people do post realistic remedies, the thread inevitably drops off into the abyss...:hi:

you guys are getting really good at posting flamebait.

And there you go.

For this to be flamebait, it must go against what I've come to call "DUCK" or the Democratic Underground Collective Karma. Some people call it by different names, but on any given day, there is a list of threads you are NOT permitted to start without having it interpreted as going against the DUCK, and as such, flamebait, or trolling, or whatever.

For example, the current DUCK states that only threads which are either about BP, the oil spill, or the handling of the aforementioned by the Obama administration are permitted, and then only those which are angry about any or all of those topics. Any attempts to see the brighter side of things will be stomped.

Now, to those previously unfamiliar with how DUCK works, it may seem that a particular thread started for just such a purpose could never be interpreted as flamebait in reality, but DUCK contravenes this and no real concrete measure of what does or does not constitute flamebait truly applies.

To help these individuals determine whether their sentiments will be well received or not, I have developed, you guessed it, the DUCK test.

Question 1: Does your thread attempt to in any way, shape, or form, attempt to ameliorate outrage brought about from current topics. If not, proceed to question 2. If so, do not continue, your thread goes against the DUCK and as such will be labeled flamebait.

Question 2: Does your viewpoint suggest, even to the very slightest degree, the possibility that there might be some silver lining amidst the doom and gloom of whatever qualifies as a typical statement given the topics of interest. If not, proceed to question 3. If so, do not continue, your thread goes against the DUCK and as such will be labeled flamebait.

Question 3: Is there a possibility, no matter how remote, that your thread might make someone, anyone, feel a little better about the current situation? If not, continue. If so, do not continue, your thread goes against the DUCK and as such will be labeled flamebait.

Congratulations! If you get to this point, your thread is considered DUCK-safe. If your writing is good, it may even spend a couple of days on the Greatest Page. You are awarded +10 quacks.

I read and re-read my op three times looking for what was flamebaitish about it.

There is nothing in this post that is flamebait.

they try different ways of couching, but the intent is all the same: castigation, marginalization, elimination of critical thinking.

:sarcasm:

Why can't anyone discuss this? Aren't YOU telling us to STFU?

Unbelievable gall.

So unless we're trashing Obama 100% of the time, we're not supposed to post?

Sheesh you are the reverse of Palin. Apparently anyone even discussing something you don't like is by doing so interfering with your freedom of speech.

you attack those who want to discuss it.

...that it got you to identify yourself.

I don't know if that means anything, or if anything revealing can be extracted from it (probably not).

I've always believed that counting one's blessings as well as one's burdens is only fair and correct.

running this country, we tend to look positive at most of what the current administration is doing.

But please, don't think that those of us who think Obama is pursuing status quo policies, are not also greatly relieved that McCain/Palin are not in charge!

Another unrec from me.

taking something that could be great and diminishing it down to meet the demands of the lowest common denominator in an attempt to be conciliatory is not my choice of leadership style in a president.

Msongs

after 8 years of blowhard kneejerkery.

I have noticed that you post that sentiment frequently.

But it hardly helps us to try and figure out what we should all be doing as citizens to deal with the present challenges.

Seems more like surrender of one's own free agency to the charms of a charismatic leader (to me).

But that is not what this thread is about.

Which, boiled down to its essentials, would read something like: "What do you want, Sarah Palin?"

Let me make a suggestion.. why don't you start your own thread.. and then I can come and discern your "intent"

I will continue to engage and, perhaps, to challenge you on this point, in fact.

Is this not a "discussion" forum?

Did you not start this OP to foster discussion?

I've been in hijacked threads. This ain't one of them.

Why are you so sensitive today?

:rofl: Ok.

voters than one with John McCain and Sarah Palin.

Republicans who think of themselves as the "true" conservatives have never much cared for McCain. Some of them are dismissive of him and backed even a ninny like Dubya over him in 2000. So they would have not been completely thrilled to have him in office, even if they preferred him to Obama. He has never been their guy.

Palin is ultimately a secessionist in addition to being an idiot. I'm not sure the same "true conservatives" who distrust McCain are that much more comfortable with Palin. The GOP has a real big problem on its hands when Sarah Palin and Rand Paul are its public face and voice.

Had McCain-Palin won in 2008, their 4-to-8 years of public pronouncements would have been excruciating for us to sit through. It would also have meant 4-to-8 more years of conservative judicial appointments at all levels on the heels of 8 years of Dubya's appointments.

;-)

:rofl:

Well said.

and being very disappointed. Sadly, they're not great, but they're FAR from what McSame and the Idiot would have been - but that's no excuse to ignore the things we as liberals should be upset about - ongoing war, DADT, corporate coziness and bailing their asses out...

and we'd let the oil company handle it.


oh... wait.

Would McCain have allowed BP to run the show? Absolutely!

Would McCain have announced more offshore drilling? Totally!

Would McCain have continued the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Philippines, Colombia, etc? No doubt!

Would McCain have restored habeas corpus? No way!

I'd rather try to cope with the challenges we face right now, however, since LIVES ARE ON THE LINE and shit...

Sigh.

:shrug:

because we are the ones in the trenches..and this is just that. If if bothers you, just put the thread on ignore.. it is no skin off your nose

I get the feeling you think you are "special" in some way from reading that.

Meanwhile, as you know, we just got through a pretty major primary in my state (PA).

A primary which was pretty controversial, including right here on DU.

A lot of us were in the "trenches" for that one.

Sigh.

Well how nice of you to point that out to me.

Good grief

With those you apparently view as NOT on those "front lines."

That was your quote.

I think you meant to suggest that your "activism" was somehow more "serious" and engaged than the activities of the "critics"...

Am I getting anything wrong here?

values as opposed to Democratic values..

I responded to the OP, and you responded with that statement.

It was a natural development out of that exchange.

in what the average voter thinks? Or do you just do what you want and the democratic voter better be quick to fall in line and march to your orders?

The oil spill would be an excuse for more interference in the middle east, since we'd need more oil to make up for it.

Unemployment would be high enough that people would be joining the military for lack of anything else to do.

Since the republicans have signed on to a flat earth philosophy


Obama administration rolled out new details on May 7 about its blueprint for federal spending in the coming year. And no matter how you cut it, science comes out a big winner. The current proposal is to spend $147.6 billion on research and development during the next fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1 — $555 million more than Congress enacted for the current fiscal year.

This spending would be supplemented by the already approved Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, also known as the economic-stimulus package. It directs the government to pump $20 billion into R&D, money to be spent between now and the end of fiscal year 2010, said White House science adviser John Holdren at a press briefing held at the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C. Most of this is being directed into basic and applied research, he added.



http://smoont.com/science-get-1476-billion-for-research-from-obamas-administration-for-next-fiscal-year/

(who would have succeeded McCain when the stress of the office proved too much within weeks of his inauguration) would thank BP for all the paychecks to her husband, commend BP for working soooo hard to help hard-working Merkins maintain the Merkin Dream by fueling their Hummers, and present to BP a PPMoF (Palin Presidenshul Medal of Freedumb) for their scientific proof that dead fish swim don't swim.

-

and the Defense Of Marriage Act would still be the law of the land.

Obama supports DOMA.

today's TeaPubliKlans but the disparity is shrinking and so it is nearly as important (and more so everyday) to prevent our party's rightward and
business friendly" shift.

Today's Democrats are scarily similar to yesterday's Republicans say circa mid 90's. Those policies weren't acceptable then and haven't improved with the years.

One thing being better than the other is an important thing to be able to discern but a choice between horrible toxins or terminal diseases only really means so much.
Many times better is measurable and even self evident without being acceptable.

It seems for many people the baseline has become intolerant, intellectually incurious, and often seemingly criminally insane or at least negligent and inept COMBINED with the religion of supply side crony Reaganomics, a cult of deregulation, a near complete disregard for the needs of a free and well maintained and god like deference to those who control wealth.
After a generation or more of this any deviation is appreciated but if your trajectory moves from dead center of a 30 mile swamp to a couple feet over it's not time for the Mission Accomplished banners, for the Ewoks to dance, or a fireworks display.
The thing is if we keep going as we are we are fucked either way, a little less fucked but solidly fucked. There is a complete refusal to actually make any systemic or structural changes that are required to maintain a healthy, inclusive, or even rational and sustainable society.

Fundamental policy is the same regardless of who is in office but no questions Democrats execute better, so if that is good enough to rate acceptable for you so be it but many of us believe that it is not only the caliber and ability of the individuals but ideas, policies, and choices make beneficial leaders that will make correct decisions for the nation and it's people.

I may be wrong and have been before but we are in a purposeful slippery slope that is a cycle we must break or its game over for individual civil liberties, widespread economic opportunity, a government of the people, and our shared and only environment.
The Democrats slide right and the Republicans run further while with the help of the corporate media and a rabid, ignorant base reframe their former extreme fringe as the new center which allows the Democrats to largely hold the positions and policies the Republicans espoused seemingly the night before.

If you want to be complicit in this little play either by embracing it in some kind of self inflicted Jedi mind trick that allows you to ignore or minimize the obvious or just out of legitimate belief in right wing policy but under different management then so be it. However, espousing beliefs contrary to the Reagan paradigm but pretending playing them out instead of the Republicans is incremental progress away from it looks, smells, and feels wildly optimistic (to say the least) bullshit and bullshit ain't getting you any closer to the promised Land.

We might not have much of a choice right now if we have to cram down a few shit sandwiches but we have every ability to choose to refuse to call it prime rib, roast beef, a hamburger, Alpo, or even silly puddy. Its shit and its just as much shit regardless of who's serving it up. Wrong doesn't have to be right because their is a worse case scenario.

Some folks aren't going to live based on a politics of fear. Our odds aren't good when we can only rely on the whip of fear and a baseline of comparison to the worst case scenario as our motivation. That stinks of death and decline and gives tacit and implied permission for the death and decline to go on as well as to expand.

Those who wish to play the old nuclear bomb survival drill game are free to do so but the shrill demands for the rest of the world to crouch and cover are kinda lame.

What they would have done is irrelevant. What I'd like is the Democrats we elected to act as if they know they won and quit acting as if the Republicans won and must be kowtowed to.

In fact, we have elected the Democrats in 3 election cycles now. It would be good for them to quit soiling themselves and rushing to the right every time a Repig or a corporate lobbyist says 'jump.'

.... Palin would have quit by March when she realized she could make more money selling books at the Barnes and Noble.

true lol

:evilgrin: