The Democratic Party has moved too far to the left.

[hollodero]

(11-25-2019, 09:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Those Republicans are stupid. A smart Republican would say "Hell no!!, they haven't moved far enough Left."

Ah-ha! But does the smart republican really wish for Trump to be reelected.

[Belsnickel]

(11-25-2019, 09:25 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I mean, there's no doubt that the party is moving to the left. 10 years ago, the Democrats were not talking about universal healthcare, debt free college or any of the other policies mentioned in this post, at least not on a significant scale like we're seeing today.

But to the contrary of what some of the more right leaning or center right posters are saying, I don't think the party is moving to an extreme. I just think the Democrats are FINALLY beginning to occupy the left wing of the political spectrum after spending decades as the true center party.

Before now, there was no left wing party in America other than the Green party, who never really got any traction as a major part of American politics.

I think it's nice to finally have a progressive wing of American politics.

I don't disagree with you, but what I'm saying is the perception of "too far" to the left is based upon the OW shift. I agree that there is a movement towards more progressive policies, but that movement is coming after there has been a decades long shift to the right.

[*bfine32*]

(11-25-2019, 09:39 PM)hollodero Wrote: Ah-ha! But does the smart republican really wish for Trump to be reelected.

Yes, unless another conservative steps up. Bless her, but RBG can only hang in there so long. 

[Benton]

The same can be said for the right. Not every Republican is pro big business or pro segregation. Partied are typically judged by the extremes, even if that doesn't adequately reflect the majority. I know in Kentucky a lot of Republican voters were dumbfounded when state level gop started cutting taxes on the wealthy and expanding taxes on everyone. Along with passing right to work laws.

[hollodero]

(11-25-2019, 09:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes, unless another conservative steps up. Bless her, but RBG can only hang in there so long. 

Ah, so the smart conservative thinks a judge is more important than honor and integrity in the white house?

[GMDino]

(11-26-2019, 11:08 AM)hollodero Wrote: Ah, so the smart conservative thinks a judge is more important than honor and integrity in the white house?

Of course.  The gop wants to politicize the courts like they have everything else.

Then we can get back to being a "Christian nation" under the thumb of the Republican party. 

[hollodero]

(11-26-2019, 11:24 AM)GMDino Wrote: Of course.  The gop wants to politicize the courts like they have everything else.

Then we can get back to being a "Christian nation" under the thumb of the Republican party. 

In fairness, I blame your constitution for that. Creating an "independent" third branch full of political appointees that distinctly belong to one side. And chance by death determines the SC's composition, leading to some very cynical viewpoints from both sides. Brilliantly thought out by 18th century farmers, sorry I meant framers. I can be so snippy, I am a strange foreigner.

I'm just surprised a judge is more important than having a president who is not an uneducated, ethics-free egomaniac and hate-spreader and extorter and deeply embarrassing figure, in the end also courtesy of your great constitution. Never change a letter.

[GMDino]

(11-26-2019, 11:57 AM)hollodero Wrote: In fairness, I blame your constitution for that. Creating an "independent" third branch full of political appointees that distinctly belong to one side. And chance by death determines the SC's composition, leading to some very cynical viewpoints from both sides. Brilliantly thought out by 18th century farmers, sorry I meant framers. I can be so snippy, I am a strange foreigner.

I'm just surprised a judge is more important than having a president who is not an uneducated, ethics-free egomaniac and hate-spreader and extorter and deeply embarrassing figure, in the end also courtesy of your great constitution. Never change a letter.

Not to mention when one decides to step down and name his own replacement (Kennedy - Kavanaugh) and there is nothing that can be done about it because the gop puts party over people.

I would hope that Trump would awaken some kind of civic pride in people to never let someone like him happen again but 30-40% of republicans still support him no matter what he does.

[hollodero]

(11-26-2019, 12:00 PM)GMDino Wrote: Not to mention when one decides to step down and name his own replacement (Kennedy - Kavanaugh) and there is nothing that can be done about it because the gop puts party over people.

I would hope that Trump would awaken some kind of civic pride in people to never let someone like him happen again but 30-40% of republicans still support him no matter what he does.

30-40% of republicans? That number seems way too low.

[GMDino]

(11-26-2019, 12:14 PM)hollodero Wrote: 30-40% of republicans? That number seems way too low.

Those are the ones that poll consistently never straying from Trump and the gop.

90-95% will vote for him no matter what. 

[hollodero]

(11-26-2019, 12:27 PM)GMDino Wrote: Those are the ones that poll consistently never straying from Trump and the gop.

90-95% will vote for him no matter what. 

Well, there are supreme court vacancies on the line, so.

Meanwhile, Trump is banking on the loyalty of "his" SC judges. But I'm sure that won't cause any trouble down the line.

-- I am well aware that I killed the thread's main topic... to that effect though, one party might or might not be too left, but the other one is definitely way too deep into Trumpism. They are about to let him get away with obstruction, abuse of power and extortion, none of which is an exaggeration. Makes it hard for me to frown upon Democrats, that at least seem to uphold some principles - even when Schiff probably was untruthful when he claimed "we're better than that". As of now, no you're not.

That being said, abolishing all private insurance seems a bit too far left for the US indeed. Why protecting the environment is somehow "left" in the first place escapes me, however.

[*bfine32*]

(11-26-2019, 11:08 AM)hollodero Wrote: Ah, so the smart conservative thinks a judge is more important than honor and integrity in the white house?

Well it is why i said "unless another conservative runs". We are not electing Pope. It's easy to shake your fist; it's refreshing to see the Left sudddenly so concerned about morality. Which do you consider more important? 

[hollodero]

(11-26-2019, 02:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well it is why i said "unless another conservative runs".

Yeah well, that perspective is not rooted in reality. In reality, the GOP does not quite allow for a contender, and third party stands no chance. Also, Trump is too popular among republicans. But I'm sure they're all very smart.

(11-26-2019, 02:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: it's refreshing to see the Left sudddenly so concerned about morality.

What's that supposed to mean? Did the left not care about morality before? Were they always fine with extorting other countries for campaign dirt before?

(11-26-2019, 02:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Which do you consider more important? 

Well, since your current WH is swarming with shady figures and shady deals and is epicly embarrassing, I'd focus on that first and foremost. Oh, also it pulls "your" party, dare I say, into this mud with it. Conservativism is morphing into Trumpism and that might as well become the conservatives' future, and there are some obvious, egregious downsides to that. Is what I'd consider.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(11-26-2019, 11:57 AM)hollodero Wrote: In fairness, I blame your constitution for that. Creating an "independent" third branch full of political appointees that distinctly belong to one side. And chance by death determines the SC's composition, leading to some very cynical viewpoints from both sides. Brilliantly thought out by 18th century farmers, sorry I meant framers. I can be so snippy, I am a strange foreigner.

I'm just surprised a judge is more important than having a president who is not an uneducated, ethics-free egomaniac and hate-spreader and extorter and deeply embarrassing figure, in the end also courtesy of your great constitution. Never change a letter.

Hey, watch your tone mister. Just because you gave the world Arnold Schwarzenegger doesn't mean we forget you also gave the world Hitler.   

[hollodero]

(11-26-2019, 02:47 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Hey, watch your tone mister. Just because you gave the world Arnold Schwarzenegger doesn't mean we forget you also gave the world Hitler.   

Well... we're at least trending in the right direction.

[*bfine32*]

(11-26-2019, 02:37 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah well, that perspective is not rooted in reality. In reality, the GOP does not quite allow for a contender, and third party stands no chance. Also, Trump is too popular among republicans. But I'm sure they're all very smart.



What's that supposed to mean? Did the left not care about morality before? Were they always fine with extorting other countries for campaign dirt before?



Well, since your current WH is swarming with shady figures and shady deals and is epicly embarrassing, I'd focus on that first and foremost. Oh, also it pulls "your" party, dare I say, into this mud with it. Conservativism is morphing into Trumpism and that might as well become the conservatives' future, and there are some obvious, egregious downsides to that. Is what I'd consider.

It's almost like politics.

[hollodero]

(11-26-2019, 03:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It's almost like politics.

Nah, it really isn't. I declare that statement ostrichism.

[*bfine32*]

(11-26-2019, 03:14 PM)hollodero Wrote: Nah, it really isn't. I declare that statement ostrichism.

Quote:Definition of politics

1a : the art or science of government

b : the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy

c : the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government

Which one is it "not really"?

[Dill]

(11-26-2019, 03:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Which one is it "not really"?

The one not listed in your above post; the one you were actually using.

[Dill]

(11-25-2019, 09:47 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't disagree with you, but what I'm saying is the perception of "too far" to the left is based upon the OW shift. I agree that there is a movement towards more progressive policies, but that movement is coming after there has been a decades long shift to the right.

Yes, and that shift to the right was accompanied by a purge of sorts, so the Republican party has long been "purer" than the Democratic.

If one goes by the news discourse, especially from the right, that great shift right also expands what is called "the left" to now include centrist positions.
Think of Arlen Specter and Jim Jeffords.   By the time Boehner retired, he was a RINO.  

It's like you are in a train station looking out the window at another train (party). It starts moving and you think your own train (party) is.