Correct, I've already stated Clinton made tweaks before signing. It doesn't change the fact it's a republican bill designed to be signed by a republican president.
There wouldn't have been enough support from the Democrats without Clinton persuading enough of them.
There's another side to the issue which is another thing I've found disappointing about the Democrats. In terms of NAFTA and other strides towards free trade, it has led to outsourcing to a variety of countries where US companies can set up factories and sweatshops where they make a pittance working long hours under grueling conditions. You don't really hear much outrage from the Democrats about these kinds of situations.
Infighting over what? Opinions on which way the democratic party should move into the future? Opinions are good and they're continually discussed. You want to call that division, I see it as healthy debate within one's own party.
Well, we'll see. Maybe they can pull together and actually get some things done. There have been times in the past when Democrats have been able to do that. FDR and his Democratic administration helped America win World War II, so the Democrats can be pretty darn good when they put their mind to something.
From your opinions, I do sense far-right newsmaker influence somewhere in your sphere of information. If you're not watching it on TV, then you're getting via Facebook or other social media from your friend feed, etc.
You really have no idea. You don't know me, and I doubt you've really examined "my opinions" closely enough to be drawing any conclusions. I've written a lot of opinions during the years I've been here, a lot of it mainly supporting far-left positions. I am aware of certain far-right media out there, along with moderate/neutral, and left and far-left media. I look at media from other countries and various other sources I might come across. I don't have Facebook or other social media, unless Religious Forums counts as "social media."
Democrats have always been the lesser of 2 evils, your opinion that Republicans are the lesser of 2 evils is just that. An opinion shaped by your media choices. It's not the based in reality.
Wait. You just said "your opinion that Republicans are the lesser of 2 evils"?
Did I express that opinion at any time in this thread or any other thread? If so, then please show it to me. I never said, nor do I believe, that the Republicans are the lesser of 2 evils. I don't know if you're just really that confused, or if you're playing games. Either way, this characterization is way off the mark.
In fact, I have always said that the Republicans are worse, but you seem so blinded that you see enemies whenever you hear the slightest criticism of the Democrats. You must think "Oh, he's criticizing the Democrats, he must be a right-winger." Just like when I criticize the Republicans (which you probably never notice), people think "Oh, he must be a left-winger," although they'd be correct in that case.
You don't really seem to want to discuss issues, you just want to label people. But before doing that, why don't you at least make sure you're using the correct label?
I'm probably further to the left than most Democrats, so I agree that they're better than the Republicans, but as I keep saying, that's not saying much. Especially these days.
Nope, that's just your take. Let's admit that you're not interested in hearing negative opinions of republicans.
Again, you're way off the mark. I'm interested in hearing negative opinions about everything and everyone, including Democrats and Republicans.
RW media isn't either. Which is why RW media shields it's viewership from ANY negative republican news.
This leaves the viewer with noticing Democrats Bad all day every day, Republicans never do bad, all day every day.
It's a psychological conclusion that the brain develops unconsciously.
I think you watch RW media far more than I do. You seem far more intimately acquainted with it. I'm familiar with some of it, radio, TV, and internet, but I don't really bother with it too much. I really don't use it as any kind of news source. My opinions of the Democrats are based on observations I've made over the course of my life here as a citizen and a voter. This was before Fox News or Rush Limbaugh or any of what might constitute "RW media." Just because I've been a disgruntled Democrat doesn't mean that I've turned over to the Republicans.
But on the other hand, of the Republicans I've known personally, I don't see them as devils with horns. They're just ordinary people. Many are quite nice. I've also known quite a few nice Democrats, too.
I assure you I'm not being brainwashed or programmed by anything.
Most things and talking points coming from RW sympathizers ARE false equivalencies. Because their media teaches them the false equivalency while ignoring the reason WHY it's a false equivalency.
Your media is intentionally shielding you from information that refutes the whole narrative.
But I wasn't even comparing anything in the portion you quoted above. If you're saying "A is not equivalent to B," then could you be so kind as to point out what is "A" and what is "B"? Setting aside the "why," you haven't even established the "what."
I understand the psychological aspects of politics and propaganda. Most people do not. Most people do not take the time and research to understand these things.
I actually took some Russian while I was in college, and took some courses on their history, political system, propaganda techniques. Politics is about persuading people, and oftentimes, events can be presented and interpreted with a certain persuasive zeal and passion which can be made to influence people. You can call it "false equivalence" if it makes you feel better, but that doesn't negate the fact that there are certain commonalities in how ideas and events can be presented so as to persuade and manipulate public opinion.
Oftentimes, it's not even measured in what they say, but in what they don't say. What key information is being left out?
One has to be able to sift out what little fact there might be from conjecture, speculation, opinion, and hearsay. I heard some Russians talking about how many of them became quite adept and skilled at reading between the lines, since they knew they were reading propaganda but were able to see through it.
Propaganda also can fail when the purveyors of it grow so out of touch with reality that it has no real influence over the masses. I'm sure that Nazi propaganda about "glory" and "victory" was losing its luster among Germans who were watching their cities being blown to smithereens.
Which is why people all the time say "politics is so confusing and I just don't understand it."
By design, they don't want your brain understanding it because propaganda works directly underneath the surface and is designed to be unnoticed.
Critical thinking is also despised by republicans for that very same reason. They don't want you aware of what's going on.
Politics really isn't that confusing. But it's not quite so black-and-white as people try to make it out to be. When it comes to the nuts and bolts of making laws and measuring their effect on society, that's the realm of lawyers and bureaucrats - and that's where a lot of the confusion sets in. They might hear one thing from the politicians, but when it finally trickles down to the masses, it's something completely different.
Simple question:
To you, would you say there's more division in the Democratic party than the Republican party?
At the moment, it's within the Republican Party, without a doubt. I think they might split up. I recall back around 1980 when Reagan said there was an "11th Commandment - Thou shalt speak no ill-will of a fellow Republican." They have had periods where they've had a strong show of unity, whereas the Democrats - being more open and transparent (and I say that to their credit) - they've tended to air out their dirty laundry a little more often. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I think that's a good thing.
But if it's dirty laundry, then it's dirty laundry. We have to call it is, even if the Republicans' laundry is even dirtier.
