So you want to claim a huge complex organization means there will be all sorts of disagreements and opposing ideas when it comes to the Democrats but when it comes to the Republicans they all are on board with the same ideas? Democrats do not vote based on positions held by their far left members? Maybe that's because you happen to agree with the position and it no longer seems far left to you? Yes Republicans often cater to their right side but to suggest the Democrats do not cater to their left? ...reallllly?
Then you ask me to point where left wingers prevented Obama from doing anything? Here's the real problem with that statement, Obama is a left winger so the lefties will support him! But lets instead look at how the Democratic party, you know that party that supports one another did shall we? They had almost 4 years of majority in both houses, yet they fought amongst themselves and failed to support universal health care, they failed to raise taxes on the wealthy, they failed to shut down Gitmo, how about the six pages of broken promises Obama has made according to politifact? http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... en/?page=1
They could have supported him but did NOT, but they are soooo supportive of one another and do not fight amongst themselves, they are all in unison and the left wingers side with the more centrists in their party? That party is every bit the same as the Republicans are as far as infighting, you said I could not point to a single one, I guess that was the wrong thing to say?

Then you want to suggest the deficit reduction is due to Republicans? But the Democrats do not want to reduce spending, they want some taxes on the most wealthy and then suggest we can reduce the deficit without cutting spending? It's the Republicans who insist on spending cuts! ...You want to blame republicans for not cutting spending????????

Freeman:

I pointed out the example of Republican senators not voting for gun control checks when there is 90 percent approval. Republicans' immigration policy is affected by the far-right base; even though Republicans want to appeal to Hispanic voters they are having difficulty going very far because they don't want to alienate the right-wing base. How about taxes? Again there is the dogma of no net increase in taxes (from the far-right wing base) that has made it very difficult for Republicans to make a deal on deficit reduction. Name one issue where the views of left-wingers have prevented Obama from doing anything. You can't because there is not one such issue. So, no, each party's crazies don't cancel each other out, because ours don't affect policy and theirs do.

I think that gun control and immigration policy are examples that support your case. I don't think you are correct on fiscal policy. We've had 2 tax increases totalling $1.7 trillion (ACA and the 1/1/13 deal) whereas the only spending reduction has been sequester which has been marginal and has been accomplished with Obama and the Democrats kicking and screaming. Everyone agrees that we need entitlement reform except for the left fringe, yet we have had virtually no spending reductions (even 10 years down the road) because of Democratic party politics.

Opposition to entitlement reform may not be all coming from leftie democrats...http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb ... 90265.html
Tom, I just don't like discussion getting shut down because each party purportedly is the same (with regard to the effect of it's fringe elements) Let's examine it, let's look at the evidence. I gave you some concrete examples to mull over. RJ came back saying with what about entitlement reform, you're being unreasonable about that because of presumably certain interest groups within the party. That's a reasonable counter-argument to make.

and I mentioned the entitlement reform before he had. I also mentioned universal health care, Democrats could have pushed that through but they failed to do so, parts of the party wanted it badly, especially Obama. Instead they came back with something not promised.

As I recall, Obama did not really support universal healthcare. During the 2008 primaries it was his opponents Clinton and Edwards who were more supportive of single payer, and Obama who was more for less drastic reform. Similarly, it was Congressional 'left' Democrats who pushed for more. Obama never seemed to back them.

And because a significant part of the Democrats were opposed to single payer, they could not have put it through as a party.

It was so long ago, you may be right but it only strengthens the argument more. Dems fought among themselves some for and some against universal health care, it was a leftist vs a centrist position in the Democratic party, a position Freeman is suggests is impossible to find, he claims such infighting is a Republican only issue and that just aint so.

I think you are misinterpreting Freeman's argument. He's saying that the Republican extreme runs the Republican party in a very unhealthy way. He's not saying that there are no disagreements in the Democratic Party. He's just saying that the extreme left members of the Democratic Party don't run the show.

They don't run the show in the Republican party either, unless you listen to bloggers who would like you to think they do that is. They do have disagreements, they do have some pandering to that extreme as well, but this is no real significant difference than the Democrats do with their far left side themselves. Who "runs" the Republican party? well, I would point to Boehner and Ryan, how about the younger "stars" such as Rubio and Jindal? Are these guys ultra right wingers? I would say no. How about the Democratic party, Feinstein, Pelosi and Franks, Obama, are they farther to the left of their party? lots of personal opinions here (for both sides) but I would say yes. That tells me this entire assumption is nothing more than buying what the liberals are selling, it's not true and in fact is likely just the opposite of reality?!

snooze if you will, but that doesn't change anything. Just who are these ultra right leaders of the Republican party? Yes, they have plenty in their ranks and they have some clout, no doubt! But the leaders of the party, are they on the far right?

Then advise who the leaders of the Democratic party are and tell me if they are more "centrist' or far left leaning. The result may not be what you expect or what you like, maybe it will make you snooze, things that don't support what you want often do have that effect. Explain to me how I am wrong, I didn't start the whole conversation, I'm simply pointing out an obvious misrepresentation is all. A sleeping reply and no opinions to counter only strengthens the suggestion, thank you.

It was an indication of boredom rather than disagreement.

I look at the world and see a lot going on. Syria aflame. Obama in Israel. Cyprus having a financial crisis that is causing reaction from the EU and Russia. Venezuela about to have elections. A new Pope. India facing up to rape culture (and Ohio, it seems). The fallout from the success of Italy's Five Star Movement. Bombs across Iraq. War in Mali. Election tension in Kenya (again). Julia Gillard clinging on yet again. Scotland announcing a date for a referendum on independence.

And then I look here and see several posts in succession debating whether the Republicans or the Democrats are as bad as each other, or if one is slightly worse, and listrng names of bogeymen (and bogeywomen). Boring.

tom

They don't run the show in the Republican party either, unless you listen to bloggers who would like you to think they do that is

We have become expert in how to provide ideological reinforcement to like-minded people, but devastatingly we have lost the ability to be persuasive with, or welcoming to, those who do not agree with us on every issue.”

The RNC's Growth and Opportunity Project,

Ricky, This is a report based on perceptions of the party, it is what people believe not what is factual, many seem to have listened to the main stream media and the blogs and such, exactly as was being done here in this thread. It in no way states the perceptions are true. You simply link something that proves my point all the more, or do you wish to show how Democrats are so different and so unified? (you can't)

Danivon, while I agree with what you said, we have so many other issues in the world, this is seemingly unimportant. However, we have always had "other" things going on and the topics discussed here and everywhere else are always unimportant. With your rational here, we should stop discussing sports, movies, etc. After all, we have so many more pressing issues to discuss, who cares about lesser important topics? To dismiss this one because we have more important issues??? then why do you post in the gun control thread, why post in the section regarding the Chevy Volt? why post in the sequester? why should we care about fantasy sports? Why should we care about playing silly games of Diplomacy on this site for that matter?

Did I say we should not discuss others issues? Nope. I just find that on this section of the forums too often the debate boils down to discussion of the Republicrats.

My position would be that if we had more varied discussions, and perhaps some that were not just about American politics, it mihht be a bit more interesting. By all means keep labouring the point that both sides are just as bad as.each othrr (but the Democrats are worse), but it would be interesting to get out of this bubble.

I have been a bit too busy with other things to try initiating threads on wider topics, and even when I have tried in the past it usually gets ignored in lieu of more partisan and (to non-Americans) parochial arguments about US politics. I know that the stereotype of Americans is that they are ignorant and incurious about the outside world (unless it affects them directly or the USis/may decide to involve itself), but lets see if you guys can confound that trope.

On topic: the nature of political parties is that they want to bring people in. Big parties are less choosy, and so find ot hard to stop the wackos from attaching themselves. I am less interested in a couple of yahoos heckling at CPAC than I am in elected and senior Republicans making statements on race and slavery, as that at least shows how the institution runs.

Small parties are often made up of odd people anyway (either because the party is a single issue/hardline ideological affair formed by obsessives, or because it is an attempt to repudiate one or more established parties and draws on malcontents as well as principled reformists).

But there is a concern I have at the idea of people now actually believing that the institution of slavery as existed in pre-bellum USA was a good thing. I regret to say I don't think it is confined to just these two jerks.

Both are bad, I mentioned that several times, later I made an observation that the Dems may very well be worse and that's all you hear? Go ahead and post about other world events and other countries politics, really please do! But to be honest, most of us Americans barely know about our own country let alone any others. You are correct about "most" Americans not caring about politics that do not affect us, guilty as charged! but that being said, who isn't guilty to at least some degree? People in the UK and Canada are affected by US politics more than are those in the US affected by UK or Canadian politics so it would follow that US politics would take a more prominent role in these discussions, I am not trying to apologize for American ignorance but am, I think, trying to lessen that ignorant aspect (though still quite guilty!)

as far as people thinking slavery of any kind or at any time being good, I don't think you will find many at all! Some no doubt and even one is one too many but that number is VERY low, lower than I think you want to assume.