HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Proud Liberal Dem » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 176 Next »

Proud Liberal Dem

Profile Information

Name: Duge Butler Jr.
Gender: Do not display
Hometown: Indianapolis, Indiana
Home country: USA
Current location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Member since: Sat Feb 28, 2004, 12:13 AM
Number of posts: 13,635

About Me

Social Worker/Case Manager working for State of Indiana. Huge Star Wars/Transformers fan. Hopeless news & politics "junkie" and wannabe writer. Married with children/step-children.

Journal Archives

I have been seriously thinking about taking a break from DU until the primaries are over

I'm more of an HRC supporter but I don't have anything against Bernie and will support the eventual Democratic nominee whoever he/she is but it just seems like there is virtually nothing posted here that isn't some kind of slam or "hit piece" on Hillary and/or her supporters. Yeah, and I acknowledge that there are some posts slamming Bernie and his supporters too, which I don't condone either but I just don't think that we need to be hating on each other just because of our support for one candidate or another. We can (or should be able to) disagree with each other without treating each other as "the enemy" and, whatever your feelings about HRC are, she is not "evil" nor has she done anything AFAIK that puts her anywhere the same league of crazy/evil as any of the Republicans currently running for POTUS.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Mon Jul 6, 2015, 07:08 PM (0 replies)

I'd be more worried IMHO

that he will be tarred and feathered the instant he has to start trying to work with (at least) a Republican House to get legislation passed or doesn't turn out to be able to deliver all of the promises he's making just like with how most jumped all over President Obama for not being able to do. Oh, he'll definitely be good on some "in-house" Executive Branch stuff (cabinet appointments, court appointments), of course, but, until the House swings back to Democratic control and he has filibuster-proof majority in the Senate whom staunchly support his policy agenda, he will have to inevitably make some compromises (or see most of his initiatives fail), which I know isn't very popular. But, of course, that would really be applicable to any of the potential Democratic candidates currently running.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Mon Jul 6, 2015, 03:16 PM (0 replies)


is about getting what you can, when you can based on the current political realities IMHO. The Federal Courts and SCOTUS moved the ball the rest of the way down the field for a touchdown with their SSM ruling but, legislatively, there have been few avenues available for advancing marriage equality in several statehouses, especially in red states, and in Congress without getting a massive number of progressives elected. I'm ecstatic that it worked out for the best all the same, however.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Thu Jul 2, 2015, 12:21 PM (0 replies)

I'm defending realism/pragmatism

Progress also often moves slowly and incrementally
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Wed Jul 1, 2015, 11:49 PM (1 replies)

What is the point of this post

other than get us at each other's throats? I guess that I can't speak for everybody per se but I'm sure that most of us here are quite happy (if not ecstatic) with SCOTUS' decision legalizing marriage equality here in the US, leaving the right-wing yahoos wailing and gnashing teeth with no real legal nor legislative recourse(s). I think that it's also fair to say that it's hard for anybody to know that things would advance this far this fast with Republicans still controlling a disproportionate share of power in many parts of this country and Congress, so, although I denounce name calling and abusive behavior (by anybody), I don't really blame some some party strategists ("Centrists") previously calling for a more measured, incremental approach to moving the needle forward on marriage politically, which, now, is a totally moot point thanks to many federal courts in many states and SCOTUS. Same goal, different strategies. In fact, I figured that we'd have ENDA long before marriage equality and it has turned out the opposite way, proving again that one can never be certain how things are ever going to play out in the world of politics.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Wed Jul 1, 2015, 07:02 PM (1 replies)


It had never occurred to me that somebody might try this or that Congress would have such sweeping powers to classify all kinds of bills as "trade bills". Seems doubtful that it would be that easy (but never turn your backs on Republicans). I thought that the Fast Track Authority (based on my admittedly shallow knowledge of it) just gives POTUS more flexibility to negotiate trade agreements and Congress to approve it on an up-or-down vote. I never imagined they might be able to use it on all kinds of things (like ACA repeal)
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Mon Jun 29, 2015, 04:23 PM (2 replies)

How does TPP or Fast Track Authority affect the filibuster

or give Republicans complete control? They won't be able to make anything and everything into a "trade bill" (I think?). Anyway, there is no guarantee that the Republicans will hit a "trifecta" in 2016 or even maintain both chambers in Congress.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Mon Jun 29, 2015, 03:34 PM (1 replies)

It's simply maddening

If anybody thought that SCOTUS making their ruling the other day would decisively stop all of the right-wing/Republican nonsense about marriage equality, they were sorely mistaken. SCOTUS threw down the gauntlet and told us that what the Constitution says about marriage equality but we need to brace for the wave of right-wing stupidity/hypocrisy/craziness that is just beginning, unfortunately. *sigh*

Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Mon Jun 29, 2015, 03:26 PM (0 replies)

I agree

What I'm mostly worried about is them spending time and taxpayer monies passing laws as an "end run" around allowing marriage equality, however I'm unsure how well any of their initiatives will fare, ultimately. RFRA-like were initially all the rage but it backfired on them in, of all places, Indiana. Giving public officials the "option" of refusing to issue marriage licenses is going to create a mess and not all of them will go along with it, anyway. Refusing to issue marriage licenses to ANYBODY and/or requiring marriages to be licensed ONLY by churches is going to create all kinds of constitutional/legal headaches and many HETEROSEXUAL couples will be upset as not all heterosexual couples belong to and/or practice any religion. There will probably never be any way that they will get a SSM ban into the constitution. There is simply no clear way to circumvent SCOTUS' ruling on SSM but the wingnuts and fundies won't stop trying, at least for awhile.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Mon Jun 29, 2015, 12:50 PM (0 replies)

I think that another thing is public officials having to issue marriage licenses

However, as PUBLIC officials, they are (supposed to be) bound to (secular) law and shouldn't get any (religious-based) exemptions from doing their job, which, of course, is serving the public. If we start carving out all kinds of exemptions for public officials in the course of performing their assigned duties, the system isn't going to be able to work right and, besides, serving ALL of the public is what PUBLIC officials are supposed to be doing. Anybody who can't- or won't- do what they were hired to do needs to move on and find a job more aligned with their religious beliefs (they ARE out there!).
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Mon Jun 29, 2015, 12:31 PM (0 replies)
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 176 Next »