The Democratic Party has moved too far to the left.

[*bfine32*]

(11-26-2019, 03:34 PM)Dill Wrote: The one not listed in your above post; the one you were actually using.

I went to Websters and posted all in my meaning. Which one was I actually using that I missed?

IMO definition c was exactly what I was using, but please tell me. I'm used to others in this forum telling me what I meant

[hollodero]

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

It's not really "business as usual" in politics.

Maybe it's about winning, but in this case it's also about winning by with dirty and often quite possibly illegal means, in detriment to national interest. 
I don't know if you can still respect this white house or the republicans covering for it with outlandish claims and conspiracies. I consider its reputation quite horribly damaged.

[Dill]

(11-26-2019, 04:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I went to Websters and posted all in my meaning. Which one was I actually using that I missed?

IMO definition c was exactly what I was using, but please tell me. I'm used to others in this forum telling me what I meant

Your definition was keyed to these actions and themes raised by Hollo:

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.

So he's discussing extra-political standards and behavior which are used to judge politics, but aren't politics per se. 

It is a common and trite claim that all politicians are dishonest or untrustworthy and "shady deals" are common, etc.  But that's not really "politics."

Best I can give you is that in gesturing that Trumpism (as Hollo describes it) is "like politics," you implicitly define politics as "shady deals." To which I counter--even if politicians maintain and exercise power through criminal actions, that doesn't make their actions "politics."

[*bfine32*]

(11-26-2019, 04:53 PM)hollodero Wrote: It's not really "business as usual" in politics.

Maybe it's about winning, but in this case it's also about winning by with dirty and often quite possibly illegal means, in detriment to national interest. 
I don't know if you can still respect this white house or the republicans covering for it with outlandish claims and conspiracies. I consider its reputation quite horribly damaged.

We are a country of checks and balances. It's great to live in an idealistic society, but one does not exist; at least not one with any power. 

[*bfine32*]

(11-26-2019, 05:10 PM)Dill Wrote: Your definition was keyed to these actions and themes raised by Hollo:

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.

So he's discussing extra-political standards and behavior which are used to judge politics, but aren't politics per se. 

It is a common and trite claim that all politicians are dishonest or untrustworthy and "shady deals" are common, etc.  But that's not really "politics."

Best I can give you is that in gesturing that Trumpism (as Hollo describes it) is "like politics," you implicitly define politics as "shady deals." To which I counter--even if politicians maintain and exercise power through criminal actions, that doesn't make their actions "politics."

Ahh, you're typing a lot of words again. There's a very good chance there have been worse characters than Trump occupy the Oval Office; it's just we are more transparent than we have been any time in the past. I understand the Left's tactic of trying to shame those that vote for Trump, but when looking at the candidates you like, do you rate them by how good of a person he/she is.

As I said: Wise people think this way and truthful people admit it. I'd love for a conservative Saint to occupy the Oval Office, but first we have to impeach Trump before we can welcome President Pence.

[hollodero]

(11-26-2019, 06:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: We are a country of checks and balances. It's great to live in an idealistic society, but one does not exist; at least not one with any power. 

Yeah... that also is ostrichism. As if all presidencies would more or less fall in the same realm as the Trump one. But they really do not. They usually do not besmirch the office, while Trump very much does that. You don't seem to refute that in principle.

Also, Trump is trying everything to lever out checks and balances. The republicans in Congress have no interest in any oversight or any "check" any longer. They defend wahtever with ridiculous and outlandish means. And Trump is also banking on the SC behaving the same way.

[hollodero]

(11-26-2019, 06:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Ahh, you're typing a lot of words again. There's a very good chance there have been worse characters than Trump occupy the Oval Office; it's just we are more transparent than we have been any time in the past.

That is merely an assumption though. Obviously meant to justify being ok with Trump. "There might have been way worse, folks just did not have the means to see it".

Well, maybe or maybe not, but at least folks have the means now to see it, but many rather choose to ignore it nonetheless. With quite duplicitous arguments like this one.

A worn-out counterpoint wold be "what if Obama did it" or "what if that were Hillary". All conservatives' hair would be on fire long time ago. Certainly including yours.

[BmorePat87]

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/472148-biden-retakes-lead-buttigieg-surpasses-warren-for-second-place-poll?fbclid=IwAR2py6QBuxwRwM5G6lMcfdAYy0CCGJ2lErYXMtIxAmBMP1snh7lnZJfV0fo

Ultra liberal Pete Buttigieg jumped to 2nd place in the latest national poll, right behind literal Marxist Joe Biden. Meanwhile Blue Dog Warren and Sanders saw their support drop.

[*bfine32*]

(11-26-2019, 06:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Ahh, you're typing a lot of words again. There's a very good chance there have been worse characters than Trump occupy the Oval Office; it's just we are more transparent than we have been any time in the past. I understand the Left's tactic of trying to shame those that vote for Trump, but when looking at the candidates you like, do you rate them by how good of a person he/she is.

As I said: Wise people think this way and truthful people admit it. I'd love for a conservative Saint to occupy the Oval Office, but first we have to impeach Trump before we can welcome President Pence.

(11-26-2019, 09:06 PM)hollodero Wrote: That is merely an assumption though. Obviously meant to justify being ok with Trump. "There might have been way worse, folks just did not have the means to see it".

Well, maybe or maybe not, but at least folks have the means now to see it, but many rather choose to ignore it nonetheless. With quite duplicitous arguments like this one.

A worn-out counterpoint wold be "what if Obama did it" or "what if that were Hillary". All conservatives' hair would be on fire long time ago. Certainly including yours.

Like clockwork. GTFO with this assumption that it is "wrong" to be "ok" with Trump. Dude's a narcissistic asshole. I am a Christian and the bible is filled with stories of God using bad people to do good things. Of course my hair would "be on fire" if Hills or Obama acted similarly. Not one word of that changes the point at hand. It you want to argue why a candidate for POTUS should be a saint, feel free to start a thread. I'll give my $0.02.  

[hollodero]

(11-26-2019, 10:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Like clockwork. GTFO with this assumption that it is "wrong" to be "ok" with Trump. Dude's a narcissistic asshole.

Jeez... language :) I'm not saying it's "wrong" (and I actually think you're a fine person, no matter what you're "ok" with), but I doubt, or let's say I wonder how, a SC seat is worth tolerating that narcissistic asshole, that also is probably borderline criminal and appallingly uneducated. That embarrasses the US throughout the world and shames the office. I mean, he does that and you know that.
Also, I do wonder if you really feel at home within the "conservative" movement as it looks now. A bunch of Trump apologists that lie to the public and promote absurd conspiracies about servers in Ukraine and Fusion GPS and FBI secret societys and a Russia hoax and a deep state and all that other actually quite dangerous BS they all have to trot out in order to defend Trump. You heard the conservatives at the hearings I suppose, aren't they appallingly cringy?

But sure, that's inherently your cup of tea, how you can integrate tolerating (I'm not saying "supporting") Trump and his party into your own value system. Only when you drag along justifications like "other dudes in office were probably way worse" or construct some kind of moral equivalency to the Dems or call Trump's behaviour merely "politics" instead of what it is, I will object and won't GTFO.

(11-26-2019, 10:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I am a Christian and the bible is filled with stories of God using bad people to do good things.

Well I am not, and I see history is full of bad people doing bad things. Not to question your faith (something I would not dare to do), but there seem to be just way more examples of bad people doing bad things as there are of bad people doing good things. Maybe God is just very selective, but it seems way more founded to believe God doesn't get mixed into election results. Or else, how would any democrat ever get elected :)

(11-26-2019, 10:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course my hair would "be on fire" if Hills or Obama acted similarly.

Yeah, of course. I admire your honesty about that. You can see though how that would open you up to accusations of hypocrisy, right?
Not to put too fine a point on that, but probably for the rest of our lives, whenever you complain about some unethical, bad or "wrong" thing the Dems do, you will be quite vulnerable to a "but you were basically ok with Trump and his folks doing way worse, right?" response, and that will be tough to counter.

(11-26-2019, 10:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not one word of that changes the point at hand. It you want to argue why a candidate for POTUS should be a saint, feel free to start a thread. I'll give my $0.02.  

Nah, probably no one is a "saint". I was not saying that and since it's you, I politely ask you to not lay words in my mouth either, something you would heftily object to. What I'd say is that there's a whole lot of area between being a saint and being a Trump. That's not an either/or scenario.
Concerning the "point at hand", Trump has little to do with Dems moving too far left inherently, but as of now and as for a more or less neutral observer like me, the Dems seem to be the party that holds the norms and the law and the US' standing in high regard, while the GOP seems to argue that Trump can do however he pleases.

[Vas Deferens]

GOP has moved too far into the pockets of Russia.

“Why do I care what is going on in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia?!” Carlson said. “And I’m serious. Why do I care? Why shouldn’t I root for Russia? Which I am.” - Tucker Carlson

Show me another member of the msm who is actively pushing the narrative of our main adversary and then come tell me about whatever the **** you're talking about with 'too far left'. Too far left isn't too far left when there is even a hint of populism behind it. Too far russian is another story.

I'd rather care about the objectives of our citizens, no matter how idealistic, than anything spoon fed by moscow.

[CKwi88]

Yeah, affordable healthcare, affordable higher education, energy independence, cleaner air, living wages etc.

What do they think this is? Europe?

[NATI BENGALS]

(11-26-2019, 10:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Like clockwork. GTFO with this assumption that it is "wrong" to be "ok" with Trump. Dude's a narcissistic asshole. I am a Christian and the bible is filled with stories of God using bad people to do good things. Of course my hair would "be on fire" if Hills or Obama acted similarly. Not one word of that changes the point at hand. It you want to argue why a candidate for POTUS should be a saint, feel free to start a thread. I'll give my $0.02.  

Its crazy when some people I think I knew start regurgitating the same shit spewing out of the lake of poison that me and many others are fully aware of. 





If this was a Muslim going on about some shit....

Either way gtfo of here with this religion shit in my government. 

[NATI BENGALS]

(11-25-2019, 01:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've been saying this for a long time, it seems finally CNN is waking up to this reality as well.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/24/politics/democratic-party-left-liberal-q-poll/index.html?no-st=1572049458

Of course extreme positions tend to move to the center once the primary is over, but will it haunt whomever earns the nomination in the general election?  This article seems to indicate that the answer is yes.

Is it really the extreme position of the left? Or maybe its just the clusterfuq consequences republicans have let in by electing a reality tv show host serial sexual assaulter lying conman...?

I remember when Obama was prez and there was a t-bag party,.. the deficit actually meant something,.. bailouts were the devil... Pretty sure the majority of Americans didn't want our leaders to suckle on the teet of the most evil regimes on the planet either...

Here I am on the other side of that... And because 90 something percent of republicans will lap up this brand of shit leaking from trumps ass all of a sudden my beliefs are too extreme.....?

As far as a party moving?? Can we talk?

[Vas Deferens]

(11-27-2019, 01:29 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Its crazy when some people I think I knew start regurgitating the same shit spewing out of the lake of poison that me and many others are fully aware of. 





If this was a Muslim going on about some shit....

Either way gtfo of here with this religion shit in my government. 

ʾĀmīn. You want to be a ***** low life idiot and indoctrinate your children into a life of subjugation and inferiority? Get ready to be called out. Because. You. Are. A. *****. Idiot. Science and math ************. Deal with it or refute it logically.

How’s that tornado prayin going?

[treee]

I think they need to move even further left.

[Vas Deferens]

Trump won’t sanction China for the Xinjiang Uyghur re-education camps.

I’d say that’s a little too far chode, but I’ve never been one, so I don’t understand chode tolerance for the current scripture.

Weak. Ass. CHODE.

[NATI BENGALS]

(11-27-2019, 02:46 AM)treee Wrote: I think they need to move even further left.

That would be like breaking your femur and trying to fix it by overcompensating and jerking it back the other way twice as far. 

[GMDino]

The Republican party has moved further to the right.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-republican-party-has-changed-dramatically-since-george-h-w-bush-ran-it/

By contrast the center shifted as did the "left".

We can label people all we want but the idea of fair wages, good healthcare, clean environment, etc are good ideas no matter where you want to put them on a sliding scale.

But since everyone (not literally) wants to say D or R and than left or right we can't get anywhere.

DJT hasn't move the gop anywhere except into permanent residence in his rear end.  The only thing he really cares about his money and his own name.  Because he's bad at money he makes poor/unethical/illegal decisions with it for himself and the country.  He treats congressional funding like his own bank account and withholds payments because he "doesn't like the deal" or he "wants a favor".

That's not moving the US to the right...that's him being the idiot we knew he was before he was elected and him not "changing" like dummies thought he would at 70 years old.

No, don't blame Trump for this.  the gop has been moving that way for 30 years.  But now they thought they could get whatever they wanted with a president that has no real ideology or ethics so they went in headfirst and got it stuck in his immovable rump.

Is the Democratic party "too far" left? Not as a whole IMHO...but the entire country could use a good step back (and to the left real) quick.

[Belsnickel]

(11-27-2019, 09:24 AM)GMDino Wrote: Is the Democratic party "too far" left? Not as a whole IMHO...but the entire country could use a good step back (and to the left real) quick.

I'm a Roosevelt fan, which may seem obvious by my signature. A fan of both of them. One of the things Theodore Roosevelt was a big proponent of was clearing out corruption in politics. That was what the progressive movement was really about at the time. When I look at the current situation and hear folks like Rich Lowry talk about what is going on, agreeing that everything the Democrats say happened but saying it isn't impeachable, makes me think about that movement and how more than a century after those efforts we still have the fight those same battles.