Liberalism or Progressivism; Ideology of the US Democratic Party

[Sky High]

How can you forgive someone for committing such a heinous act?

And if she isn't a big deal in the party, then why did other Democrats support her at first (and some still do)?

Since I'm in favor of gun control? Pretty easy. Cause they share the same mind set? Is the concept of personal opinion foreign to you? And what counts as constitutional or not is not up to arm chair lawyers.

[Endus]

Just curious, but would you retain the monarchy and mandatory voting?

Why would you even bring up the monarchy?

The monarchy has absolutely nothing to do with the governance of any of the Commonwealth nations, including, for that matter, the UK itself. They're a figurehead, and nothing more. Basically, a mascot.

There's no reason whatsoever to get rid of the monarchy. And plenty of really solid reasons, at least in the UK, to keep them.

[Elegiac]

There's no reason whatsoever to get rid of the monarch.

False.

As to the OP, the Democrats are somewhat progressive (relatively speaking) and are centrists by international standards.

Liberal is a loaded term that has very specific uses, none of which you use correctly.

[Vizardlorde]

The opposite of 'progressive' is 'regressive', and who the fuck would want to be regressive? What is wrong with those people that wouldn't want to be progressive?

they want to be stagnant which is still pretty bad

[Masark]

False.

What reasons, beyond symbolism and ideology, would those be?

[Skroe]

I find incredible irony in this thread being made by an individual who fulfilled the textbook definition of "fascist", right down to the refusal to describe their politics within a right-left spectrum, but refused to accept the title.

By the way, you forgot centrist Democrats. Plenty of people are Democrats because they don't subscribe to Tea Party crazy and Ayn Rand fetishism.

[Nakura Chambers]

Since I'm in favor of gun control? Pretty easy. Cause they share the same mind set? Is the concept of personal opinion foreign to you? And what counts as constitutional or not is not up to arm chair lawyers.

Even most gun control supporters hate Feinstein and Bloomberg, because they are so extreme. Then again, if you actually support them, then you're probably beyond all hope of being saved.

We have this thing called a Constitution, pal, and both the Founding Fathers and the courts have been quite clearly from the start that your opinion is unconstitutional.

[Sky High]

Even most gun control supporters hate Feinstein and Bloomberg, because they are so extreme. Then again, if you actually support them, then you're probably beyond all hope of being saved.

We have this thing called a Constitution, pal, and both the Founding Fathers and the courts have been quite clearly from the start that your opinion is unconstitutional.

Oh woe is me, chambers thinks I'm beyond saving /crying uncontrollably with sad music in the background

You don't know fuck all what is constitutional or not. Since the bill to even half assedly control guns was shot down and therefore weather it was to be consider constitutional or not is a mystery. So please spar me your thinly veiled opinion.

[Zoranon]

The circle jerk going on between some of the more leftist people in this thread is extremely amusing to watch I must say.

At any rate, to pretend that the democratic party has not moved left requires a great deal of blindness. The main reason for the current troubles is not only reps moving right, but dems moving left at the same time. The almost complete collapse of centrist groups like blue dogs on the dem side, or the "hunt" for RINOAs on the rep side has not helped either.

Calling the democrats liberals is a misnomer if we think of classical liberalism. But classical liberalism is pretty much dead. Liberalism today means sometimes the complete opposite of what is used to mean, hence parties such as the socially loose but economically authoritarian parties such as greens can be called liberal.

- - - Updated - - -

I find incredible irony in this thread being made by an individual who fulfilled the textbook definition of "fascist", right down to the refusal to describe their politics within a right-left spectrum, but refused to accept the title.

By the way, you forgot centrist Democrats. Plenty of people are Democrats because they don't subscribe to Tea Party crazy and Ayn Rand fetishism.

To be quite honest, you are the pretty much text book example of fascist here, ranging from your foreign policy opinions to you view on guns.

[Nakura Chambers]

Oh woe is me, chambers thinks I'm beyond saving /crying uncontrollably with sad music in the background

You don't know fuck all what is constitutional or not. Since the bill to even half assedly control guns was shot down and therefore weather it was to be consider constitutional or not is a mystery. So please spar me your thinly veiled opinion.

It's been ruled by the courts time and time again that gun bans are unconstitutional, be it a total gun ban or a ban on a certain type of guns. Not even fully-automatic machine guns are banned in the United States.

[Endus]

It's been ruled by the courts time and time again that gun bans are unconstitutional, be it a total gun ban or a ban on a certain type of guns. Not even fully-automatic machine guns are banned in the United States.

Not even a little bit true. The National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act have both passed Constitutional challenges, as did the Assault Weapons Ban in the '90s.

There's nothing unconstitutional about gun control. Which is why the US has had some form of gun control in place for the better part of a century.

[Nakura Chambers]

Not even a little bit true. The National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act have both passed Constitutional challenges, as did the Assault Weapons Ban in the '90s.

There's nothing unconstitutional about gun control. Which is why the US has had some form of gun control in place for the better part of a century.

Only the NFA was ruled on by the Supreme Court and they ruled that the Second Amendment protected the rights of the people. Also, the NFA didn't ban any firearms, it only required a system of licensing and registration for machineguns, sawed-off shotguns and other equipment, such as suppressors.

[Sky High]

It's been ruled by the courts time and time again that gun bans are unconstitutional, be it a total gun ban or a ban on a certain type of guns. Not even fully-automatic machine guns are banned in the United States.

What planet do you live on? Did you forget we HAD an assault weapons ban?

[Endus]

Only the NFA was ruled on by the Supreme Court and they ruled that the Second Amendment protected the rights of the people. Also, the NFA didn't ban any firearms, it only required a system of licensing and registration for machineguns, sawed-off shotguns and other equipment, such as suppressors.

And that licensing system bans the weapons for those who aren't licensed. You're moving goalposts. An assault weapons ban wouldn't prevent the existence of the weapons, just that they'd be limited to those who are given license to use them, such as the military or law enforcement.

SCOTUS has been very clear that while US citizens have the right to bear arms, that does not extend to any armaments they so choose, and that the 2nd Amendment rights can be restricted.

[Healing Rain]

Well let's see. The Democrats want us to live in a country where everyone is disarmed, where women are murdering their babies, where people are murdering people under the guise of assisting them to commit suicide and where the government has taken over people's lives.


[Infracted]

[Nakura Chambers]

What planet do you live on? Did you forget we HAD an assault weapons ban?

And had it been brought up before the Supreme Court, it would have been struck down. Also, gun control supporters should be the last people to point to the 1994 assault weapons ban, because the ban proves that they are wrong.

[Endus]

And had it been brought up before the Supreme Court, it would have been struck down. Also, gun control supporters should be the last people to point to the 1994 assault weapons ban, because the ban proves that they are wrong.

The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban did go before SCOTUS, and was supported, though the challenge wasn't a 2nd Amendment challenge. So you're wrong on the idea that it was never challenged.

Assault weapons bans have been challenged at the state level in lower courts multiple times, and found to not be in breach of the 2nd Amendment.

So no, there's every suggestion that you're just making this up.

[Nakura Chambers]

And that licensing system bans the weapons for those who aren't licensed. You're moving goalposts. An assault weapons ban wouldn't prevent the existence of the weapons, just that they'd be limited to those who are given license to use them, such as the military or law enforcement.

SCOTUS has been very clear that while US citizens have the right to bear arms, that does not extend to any armaments they so choose, and that the 2nd Amendment rights can be restricted.

First off, the Supreme Court used "common use" as the determinate. The AR-15 rifle is the most popular firearm in the country, and that's only a single model of semi-automatic rifles, which are indeed well in common use. DC v. Heller did rule that some "longstanding regulations" are not necessarily unconstitutional, such as laws preventing ex-convicts from owning guns. However, it's also been ruled that the constitutionality of future regulations would have to be decided in future:

While the Court made it clear that an outright handgun ban is unconstitutional, it said that some firearm regulation is constitutionally permissible because the 2nd Amendment does not confer a right to possess any firearm, anywhere, and for any purpose. The Heller Court provided a list of “presumptively lawful” regulations. The list did not include registration, but the Court noted that the list is not exhaustive. And neither Heller nor McDonald set criteria for determining what laws would meet this standard. Thus, the Supreme Court left it to future courts to decide what laws not included in the list of presumptively legal regulations would be constitutional. This includes firearm registration.

Source: http://cga.ct.gov/2011/rpt/2011-R-0074.htm

Though the article is in regards to registration, the principle would apply to any new proposed legislation.