The Democratic Party has moved too far to the left.

[Dill]

(12-02-2019, 02:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It is like saying Bengal fans are mentally ill for talking about losing so much this year.  Just go count the number of threads about losing in the main forum.  

LOL good analogy.

And it illustrates the problem with media critiques which purport to show "liberal bias" simply by counting the number of negative reports about Trump in the mainstream media, as opposed to negative coverage of Obama.

(Not saying that counting doesn't count; the results have to be interpreted/evaluated following the usual social scientific methods.)

[Dill]

(12-02-2019, 01:56 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Is there accountability placed upon public figures?  I just don't see that.  Politics especially people let their perceptions override the facts, but that's just human nature and I'm sure I do it too.

There is little of the usual accountability placed upon Trump.

But there certainly is accountability for others. Sometimes according to normal/traditional standards, or in some cases according to the Trump base's standards.

Examples of the former, "normal" accountability would range from the Clinton Impeachment to the recent midterms, which gave the House to the Dems. We can also see it in polls showing the rise and fall of support for Dem candidates according to their positions.

Examples of the latter would be Trump supporters holding senators and Congressmen to account should they in any way disagree with Trump or contest his articulated policies, such as the are. 

Normal accountability is definitely still there for Democrats. A Dem candidate who made light of rape victims would be immediately out of the running, as would one who backed Russia over the Ukraine.

Normal accountability is not there for Trump voters though, who demand a different kind of accountability, one indifferent to norms of decency, not to mention democratic requirements such as a free pres and rule of law. They are systematically separating Trump from forms of accountability based upon constitutional government of checks and balances, all the way claiming it was "no different" for other presidents.

[hollodero]

(12-02-2019, 02:19 PM)Dill Wrote: Trump defenders (no supporters) don't idolize Trump and claim they don't support him, but their political identity demands a "never-'the-Left'" stance. When forced to choose between publicly and consistently criticizing Trump for the actions you list above, or publicly criticizing "the left" for criticizing those actions, they have to choose the latter. That contributes as much to normalizing Trump behavior as the avid support of Trump supporters.

That seems pretty much on point.

I still prefer the term "Trump tolerators" though, or maybe "neverdems". I guess many would have preferred any other GOP candidate, but the masses decided otherwise. Still, there is a conservative future to shape, especially through judges apparently. And regarding your strict duality on all political matters, one still needs to stick to the own team and vilify the other side. Singling out AOC and calling her the party's real face - and proof it's unelectable because of some folks like her that are "too left" -  is a tactic to do that, and I'd guess it's more self-affirmation than anything.

But sure, five years ago I would have laughed at anyone who had suggested a Trump could become a president with considerable support. I would have said, no way, 95% of Americans would condemn behaviour like that, Americans are too big patriots to tolerate that constant defilement of the country and the WH. Now I see this as a result of me being used to having multiple alternative options. There are none. One can claim to go libertarian or McMullin or whatever in "protest", but in the end of the "real world" it boils down to something like Trump or AOC, and then Trump is not all that awful, cannot be. E.g. he is still well-behaved enough to pick a name from a list handed to him for the SC instead of appointing Ivanka or Judge Jeanine.

In conclusion, again never change a letter in any of your traditional democratic mechanisms that are all untouchable bedrocks of the system. It got you in a really good place.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-02-2019, 03:08 PM)Dill Wrote: Normal accountability is definitely still there for Democrats. A Dem candidate who made light of rape victims would be immediately out of the running, as would one who backed Russia over the Ukraine.

In that sense, absolutely.  In the sense that they can advance far left programs like paying off college debt, socialist medicine with no private insurance, essentially eliminating the country's borders, drastically decriminalizing crimes against property, etc. they are not at all.  For all of Trump's foibles, of which there are many, his policy positions are not that radical.  His words/tweets are completely beyond the pale and he is clearly comfortable with using his position to his advantage, but his policy positions are pretty standard GOP positions.  His biggest difference with GOP orthodoxy is in the foreign policy sector.

Quote:Normal accountability is not there for Trump voters though, who demand a different kind of accountability, one indifferent to norms of decency, not to mention democratic requirements such as a free pres and rule of law. They are systematically separating Trump from forms of accountability based upon constitutional government of checks and balances, all the way claiming it was "no different" for other presidents.

What people like you routinely fail to grasp is that a Trump voter can be aware of all these things, completely acknowledge them, and still prefer Trump to an Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders for pure policy reasons. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-02-2019, 03:16 PM)hollodero Wrote: That seems pretty much on point.

I still prefer the term "Trump tolerators" though, or maybe "neverdems". I guess many would have preferred any other GOP candidate, but the masses decided otherwise. Still, there is a conservative future to shape, especially through judges apparently. And regarding your strict duality on all political matters, one still needs to stick to the own team and vilify the other side. Singling out AOC and calling her the party's real face - and proof it's unelectable because of some folks like her that are "too left" -  is a tactic to do that, and I'd guess it's more self-affirmation than anything.

But sure, five years ago I would have laughed at anyone who had suggested a Trump could become a president with considerable support. I would have said, no way, 95% of Americans would condemn behaviour like that, Americans are too big patriots to tolerate that constant defilement of the country and the WH. Now I see this as a result of me being used to having multiple alternative options. There are none. One can claim to go libertarian or McMullin or whatever in "protest", but in the end of the "real world" it boils down to something like Trump or AOC, and then Trump is not all that awful, cannot be. E.g. he is still well-behaved enough to pick a name from a list handed to him for the SC instead of appointing Ivanka or Judge Jeanine.

In conclusion, again never change a letter in any of your traditional democratic mechanisms that are all untouchable bedrocks of the system. It got you in a really good place.

I'll tell you right now, giving a must choose between Sanders/Warren and Trump I'd vote for Trump.  Thankfully I can vote for a third party candidate and not have to do either as neither choice appeals to me at all.

[*bfine32*]

(11-30-2019, 01:35 AM)hollodero Wrote: But isn't the reason for that asymmetry that Trump does and says so many controversial, shady, outrageous or stupid things?

Nah, it has more to do with obsession. I've provided plenty examples of folks slamming Trump for good works/deeds. That has 0 to do with asymmetry; that's obsession and an inability to see things with a rational lens. For instance: look atthe title of this very thread and see what it has morphed into.

I understand they cannot identify it in themselves and it is to their detriment. If I didn't want to live in a socialistic society I wouldn't mind see Trump losing if for nothing more than their sanity. 

Keep in mind this has nothing to do with rational complaint of Trump's actions. For instance I've always respected Pelosci and Shumer. It applies to folks like Maxine, Schiff, ect...  oh and a few in this forum. 

[*bfine32*]

(12-02-2019, 02:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Of course it is.  bfine is just proving my point



It is like saying Bengal fans are mentally ill for talking about losing so much this year.  Just go count the number of threads about losing in the main forum.  

Nah, it's more like starting a thread about their recent victory to talk about how terrible they are. There's plenty reason to start threads about losing. The obsession comes when folks have to turn every thread into our losing or harping on losing during positive threads. 

Get it now?......I'm going with no. 

[hollodero]

(12-02-2019, 03:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'll tell you right now, giving a must choose between Sanders/Warren and Trump I'd vote for Trump.  Thankfully I can vote for a third party candidate and not have to do either as neither choice appeals to me at all.

Nah, I get that. Though you seem to resemble some of the things I described, you are actually not quite the type of person I had in mind. The reason being that you are aware of what Trump is, you just possibly and genuinely still see it as less dramatic as I do. (And see the Dems as more dramatically left as I do.) And then it sure makes sense to prefer Trump policies to Warren policies, that even I consider a bit extreme and a bad fit for the US at times.

Your dilemma rather describes my grievances with the political system in the US. I don't know how I'd think in your shoes. But there's a thought I'd consider rational which would tell me I have to actively vote against Trump and hence the GOP this one time (third party won't do the trick), so Trump goes away and makes room for a better conservative party instead of the embarrassment it is now. Which only can happen if he loses big. But that's just a thought not based on any reality I face. (For if my leftist partys fails me, I just vote for another leftist party :) or center if I must)

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-02-2019, 03:40 PM)hollodero Wrote: Nah, I get that. Though you seem to resemble some of the things I described, you are actually not quite the type of person I had in mind. The reason being that you are aware of what Trump is, you just possibly and genuinely still see it as less dramatic as I do. (And see the Dems as more dramatically left as I do.) And then it sure makes sense to prefer Trump policies to Warren policies, that even I consider a bit extreme and a bad fit for the US at times.

Your dilemma rather describes my grievances with the political system in the US. I don't know how I'd think in your shoes. But there's a thought I'd consider rational which would tell me I have to actively vote against Trump and hence the GOP this one time (third party won't do the trick), so Trump goes away and makes room for a better conservative party instead of the embarrassment it is now. Which only can happen if he loses big. But that's just a thought not based on any reality I face. (For if my leftist partys fails me, I just vote for another leftist party :) or center if I must)

I need look no further than the complete crapstorm that has become California to see the end result of blindly following the current trend in the Democratic party.  I can honestly say that I would have never thought I'd ever be in a position to prefer the GOP stance overall (blemishes acknowledged) than that of the Dems.  I know Bel and others have commented on my exposure to Democratic policies being highly colored by the extremes they go to in CA.  This is definitely true.  I think it's equally true that the trend among the Dems overall is to emulate the CA example.  It will be very interesting to see what happens in VA as Bel once promised that CA style gun control being pushed on VA, which is in the works, will turn the state "redder than a cardinal".

[*bfine32*]

(12-02-2019, 03:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'll tell you right now, giving a must choose between Sanders/Warren and Trump I'd vote for Trump.  Thankfully I can vote for a third party candidate and not have to do either as neither choice appeals to me at all.

This is where I've always been. I freely mentioned in 2016 if I could only vote Trump/Clinton I pull the lever for Trump, but I had the luxury of a 3rd party and living in a state that I knew Hills would lose in a landslide.

This election cycle I have said I would give some of the more moderate Dems consideration. If it were between Trump and Klobuchar; I'd be wearing an "I'm with her" T-Shirt. 

I's also give consideration to Mayor Pete, Sleepy Joe, and Bloomberg (although I'll need to research further if he declares) Of course any conservative candidate that enters either as GOP or 3rd party will get my attention. Now trot out Sanders, Warren, Harris...and I'm going for 4 more years of orange hair.

The issue comes when folks declare you a "Trump supporter" because you will not accept ANY and EVERY option over him. That's where the Dems have moved too far from center. Hell Trump is not that conservative. Bring in President Pence and then talk to me.

[hollodero]

(12-02-2019, 03:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nah, it has more to do with obsession. I've provided plenty examples of folks slamming Trump for good works/deeds. That has 0 to do with asymmetry; that's obsession and an inability to see things with a rational lens. For instance: look atthe title of this very thread and see what it has morphed into.

Yeah, well, I had a part in that too. You're right. It's just quite tough for me from an outside perspective.
Referring to the holiday at hand, I see the battle of your party partisans as comparing two pumpkins. One might have its severe flaws in form or shape and it might subjectively be an ugly pumpkin for many, but it still pretty much looks like an ordinary pumpkin like they always looked. One could still make a pumpkin soup that is a western democracy out of it.
The other one though is rotten in its core, stinks to heaven, is covered in a musty yellow juice and just looks appalling.

And then folks still spend an equal amount of time to point at all the wrinkles on the ordinary pumpkin and try to make them a big deal, as if the alternative weren't that rotten thing or as if they were both equally bad because one is far from perfect too. Looks like they are still equal, you'd claim, both maybe bad, but definitely on par. It is getting tough to participate in that game, one you quite mastered.

On the other side - you wanted everyone to give him credit for visiting troops (which is just something presidents do, though most don't use that opportunity to slam opponents or make false promises), or for hosting the G7 summit, or for bringing peace to Korea or whatever quite undeserving reason. On the other hand, when I complained about him saying "some said not clapping for me is treason, and I say why not why not", you called me actually deranged for even considering he linked his opponents to traitors there. That is not an "objective lens" either and I have a hard time conceding such a lens to you.

Is the other pumpkin that rotten? To me it clearly and undoubtedly is. That is the problem. E.g. most of the 53 senators seemed to declare that they do and would not care about actual crimes, actual extortion schemes, they peddle conspiracies and lie to the public to protect their leader, run smear campaigns, berate folks in the starkest of terms, all to please a mad-king like figure. I know politicians, I never saw such a shameless bunch like this GOP leadership under Trump, a bunch that clearly would have exonerated Nixon. Something Trump's lawyers actually argue in court, that Nixon was handled wrong and that a president can do whatever he pleases, including actually shooting people, and nothing should be done about it. And not one conservative voice is concerned about that, not one effing voice, nope most happily hide behind that frivolous approach. All the democrats do wrong just is so pale in comparison.

You might see it as "obsessive", ok. But I clearly see a once proud and principled democracy possibly fall into an age of corruption, defilement and criminal schemes, definitely stopping to be a model and shining example, and I don't consider it exaggerated to be appalled by and scared of that. And also, shocked and perversely amused, sure.

(12-02-2019, 03:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Keep in mind this has nothing to do with rational complaint of Trump's actions. For instance I've always respected Pelosci and Shumer. It applies to folks like Maxine, Schiff, ect...  oh and a few in this forum. 

OK, I get why you mention Maxine, truth is some will always be "too much" (to keep it unspecific) on every side, and she's too much for me also. But what exactly did Schiff do so awfully wrong? I thought he lead good hearings, made clear and comprehensible, fair points and the only complaint I'd have is that he said "we're better than this" when this is clearly not true.
And while I guess you might find legit points against Schiff (I'm sure you can) again how would they fare against every statement of Devin Nunes. I have no horse in the US politics' race, but when seeing those two I could not focus on the little things Schiff might have done wrong when seeing an elephant of wrong like those Nunes guys in comparison.

[Dill]

(12-02-2019, 03:16 PM)hollodero Wrote: I still prefer the term "Trump tolerators" though, or maybe "neverdems". I guess many would have preferred any other GOP candidate, but the masses decided otherwise. Still, there is a conservative future to shape, especially through judges apparently. And regarding your strict duality on all political matters, one still needs to stick to the own team and vilify the other side. Singling out AOC and calling her the party's real face - and proof it's unelectable because of some folks like her that are "too left" -  is a tactic to do that, and I'd guess it's more self-affirmation than anything.

But sure, five years ago I would have laughed at anyone who had suggested a Trump could become a president with considerable support. I would have said, no way, 95% of Americans would condemn behaviour like that, Americans are too big patriots to tolerate that constant defilement of the country and the WH. Now I see this as a result of me being used to having multiple alternative options. There are none. One can claim to go libertarian or McMullin or whatever in "protest", but in the end of the "real world" it boils down to something like Trump or AOC, and then Trump is not all that awful, cannot be. E.g. he is still well-behaved enough to pick a name from a list handed to him for the SC instead of appointing Ivanka or Judge Jeanine.

In conclusion, again never change a letter in any of your traditional democratic mechanisms that are all untouchable bedrocks of the system. It got you in a really good place.

How about "never 'Lefters,'" with the obligatory quotation marks to signal dubious application?  Never "leftism" seems to bring with it a congenital blindness to Trump damage at the constitutional and policy level, though it concedes his vulgarity. Whatever Trump does, the "real" danger is still, as always, "the left," and how Trump might shift votes that direction. So disqualifying "the left" just has to continue, whatever Trump does.

The "strict duality" you refer to seems to me rather new.  40 years ago both parties were more evenly leavened with liberals and conservatives. No party had its own cable news network presenting "alternative facts." Both those conditions countered intra-party extremism, forced compromise already, at the party level before candidates were chosen and party planks selected. These conditions also made it almost impossible for either party to enforce the discipline currently exercised by Republicans. "Country first" still resonated with the WWII generation and early Boomers. Hence no surprise that in the mid 90s Dems could vote for Clinton impeachment and other bi-partisan actions highly improbable today.  Until Clinton's second term, the "strict duality" had not really been there since 1936.  By 2009, McConnell could order all Republican Senators to vote against the ACA and then define the bill as therefore "partisan" because it had no Republican support. 

If you are suggesting a link between the narrowed voting options of our two-party system and the apparent constitutional crisis in which we Americans now find ourselves, then I agree there is plausibility to that view. The current crisis seems irresolvable as the current party-goverment system is configured.  I am unconvinced the problem is truly structural.

Nixon/Agnew began studiously undoing intra-party balance in the GOP, and Reagan, then Gingrich, effectively continued it, shifting the party ever rightward. Certainly, the long term result has been that by the new millenium, compromise on most important issues short of direct national defense was impossible. But was it inevitable that, because there are only two effective parties, one should concentrate so many illiberal tendencies within itself, leaving the other to absorb the leftover (lol no pun intended)?

[hollodero]

(12-02-2019, 03:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I need look no further than the complete crapstorm that has become California to see the end result of blindly following the current trend in the Democratic party.  I can honestly say that I would have never thought I'd ever be in a position to prefer the GOP stance overall (blemishes acknowledged) than that of the Dems.  I know Bel and others have commented on my exposure to Democratic policies being highly colored by the extremes they go to in CA.  This is definitely true.  I think it's equally true that the trend among the Dems overall is to emulate the CA example.  It will be very interesting to see what happens in VA as Bel once promised that CA style gun control being pushed on VA, which is in the works, will turn the state "redder than a cardinal".

Yeah that might all be true (it is a bit above my level of insight) and I would also get why you vote against Dems in any other election from now on again.

But this next presidential one, I'd argue, is about something much more important than all of this. A single issue vote for or against Trump and, for that's what it boils down to, also all that Trump stands for, beyond policy issues. A one-time vote for Democrats will not radically change the country, but a vote for Trump very well could.
This guy is, amongst many other things, an authoritarian, and the only reason that did not yet manifest itself were people constantly falling in his arm. Those people are not there forever, and a republic is not fail-proof beyond its electorate and its responsibility to vote against authoritarians as long as they have the chance. I'd be too scared to put policy issues above that fear. But sure that's just me.

Disclaimer, by this words I don't intend to tell you that you're wrong, I just share my thoughts on that.

[hollodero]

(12-02-2019, 04:36 PM)Dill Wrote: How about "never 'Lefters,'" with the obligatory quotation marks to signal dubious application?  Never "leftism" seems to bring with it a congenital blindness to Trump damage at the constitutional and policy level, though it concedes his vulgarity.

That aligns with my perspective, yes.

(12-02-2019, 04:36 PM)Dill Wrote: The "strict duality" you refer to seems to me rather new.  40 years ago both parties were more evenly leavened with liberals and conservatives. No party had its own cable news network presenting "alternative facts."

Yeah, I don't know, I just can see the now. My thesis is that the networks and media outlets made the duality that strict. You're either with us or with the Dems, and overlaps or concessions are close to treason and make Tucker look very concerned.
Bring along Trump, and the principle gets exposed by the exalted nature of that person. I mean, he literally calls into FOX and rambles something mind-boggingly incoherent and stupid on air for hours time and again, and they still are loyal 100%. And set the example.

(12-02-2019, 04:36 PM)Dill Wrote: By 2009, McConnell could order all Republican Senators to vote against the ACA and then define the bill as therefore "partisan" because it had no Republican support.

lol, yeah, they are good in this cheap and misleading rhetorics game. Not that Dems wouldn't try to match them, they are just not as consistent and good in it.

(12-02-2019, 04:36 PM)Dill Wrote: If you are suggesting a link between the narrowed voting options of our two-party system and the apparent constitutional crisis in which we Americans now find ourselves, then I agree there is plausibility to that view. The current crisis seems irresolvable as the current party-goverment system is configured.  I am unconvinced the problem is truly structural.

But it is structural. In that the structure cements the two-party system and all that comes along with it, from blind partisanry to gerrymandering to lobbying and legal bribery. Take away any alternative (like making it a sin to vote for "those awful other guys" and by the very structure of things denying a third option to ever become viable) and you can get away with all that. All while half of folks don't mind voting for Scylla or Charybdis at all.
Of course media made it all worse. But this falls under "times change". And so must constitutions. If they're seen as set in stone, than their evanescence is automatically set in stone as well.

(12-02-2019, 04:36 PM)Dill Wrote: But was it inevitable that, because there are only two effective parties, one should concentrate so many illiberal tendencies within itself, leaving the other to absorb the leftover (lol no pun intended)?

Inevitably, maybe not. It just happened to happen. And "now you have the salad", as a true Austrian would translate it. "The fat's in the fire" is how my translator does. That is the flaw, this reliance on certain things just not happening.

[hollodero]

(12-02-2019, 03:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: For all of Trump's foibles, of which there are many, his policy positions are not that radical.

I'd say his foreign policies are quite radical as in that they are unique and totally unfettered by any policy (or idea) whatsoever. I find abandoning allies over night radical, his tearing up valid contracts radical, his apparent orientation towards authoritarian countries radical. Also I find the idea of a wall along the whole mexican border a bit radical, same goes for separating children from their parents. I find a "muslim ban" radical. I find his booming deficit radical, as well as some of his economic ideas (like banking on a constant 3% GDP growth or his idea of trade wars). I find his position on climate change radical, and his negligence of any ecological issue. Yeah there might be more if I were to think harder, but these are some examples most of which should actually count.

[*bfine32*]

(12-02-2019, 04:27 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah, well, I had a part in that too. You're right. It's just quite tough for me from an outside perspective.
Referring to the holiday at hand, I see the battle of your party partisans as comparing two pumpkins. One might have its severe flaws in form or shape and it might subjectively be an ugly pumpkin for many, but it still pretty much looks like an ordinary pumpkin like they always looked. One could still make a pumpkin soup that is a western democracy out of it.
The other one though is rotten in its core, stinks to heaven, is covered in a musty yellow juice and just looks appalling.

And then folks still spend an equal amount of time to point at all the wrinkles on the ordinary pumpkin and try to make them a big deal, as if the alternative weren't that rotten thing or as if they were both equally bad because one is far from perfect too. Looks like they are still equal, you'd claim, both maybe bad, but definitely on par. It is getting tough to participate in that game, one you quite mastered.

On the other side - you wanted everyone to give him credit for visiting troops (which is just something presidents do, though most don't use that opportunity to slam opponents or make false promises), or for hosting the G7 summit, or for bringing peace to Korea or whatever quite undeserving reason. On the other hand, when I complained about him saying "some said not clapping for me is treason, and I say why not why not", you called me actually deranged for even considering he linked his opponents to traitors there. That is not an "objective lens" either and I have a hard time conceding such a lens to you.

Is the other pumpkin that rotten? To me it clearly and undoubtedly is. That is the problem. E.g. most of the 53 senators seemed to declare that they do and would not care about actual crimes, actual extortion schemes, they peddle conspiracies and lie to the public to protect their leader, run smear campaigns, berate folks in the starkest of terms, all to please a mad-king like figure. I know politicians, I never saw such a shameless bunch like this GOP leadership under Trump, a bunch that clearly would have exonerated Nixon. Something Trump's lawyers actually argue in court, that Nixon was handled wrong and that a president can do whatever he pleases, including actually shooting people, and nothing should be done about it. And not one conservative voice is concerned about that, not one effing voice, nope most happily hide behind that frivolous approach. All the democrats do wrong just is so pale in comparison.

You might see it as "obsessive", ok. But I clearly see a once proud and principled democracy possibly fall into an age of corruption, defilement and criminal schemes, definitely stopping to be a model and shining example, and I don't consider it exaggerated to be appalled by and scared of that. And also, shocked and perversely amused, sure.



OK, I get why you mention Maxine, truth is some will always be "too much" (to keep it unspecific) on every side, and she's too much for me also. But what exactly did Schiff do so awfully wrong? I thought he lead good hearings, made clear and comprehensible, fair points and the only complaint I'd have is that he said "we're better than this" when this is clearly not true.
And while I guess you might find legit points against Schiff (I'm sure you can) again how would they fare against every statement of Devin Nunes. I have no horse in the US politics' race, but when seeing those two I could not focus on the little things Schiff might have done wrong when seeing an elephant of wrong like those Nunes guys in comparison.

Yes you did have a huge part in turning this to another "Trump thread".

I can assume the Pumpkin analogy is steeped in Austrian tradition, because you've lost me on it. Let me just ask you a simple question: Do you think there are those in this very forum that may obsess too much on Trump's words and actions? 

Schiff went off the rails with his "interpretation" of the Trump conversation and his desire to hear only the witnesses he wanted. Fortunately the last part will not be an option if it goes to the judiciary and it shouldn't have been during the House hearing.  

[Dill]

(12-02-2019, 03:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nah, it has more to do with obsession. I've provided plenty examples of folks slamming Trump for good works/deeds. That has 0 to do with asymmetry; that's obsession and an inability to see things with a rational lens. For instance: look atthe title of this very thread and see what it has morphed into.

I understand they cannot identify it in themselves and it is to their detriment. If I didn't want to live in a socialistic society I wouldn't mind see Trump losing if for nothing more than their sanity. 

Keep in mind this has nothing to do with rational complaint of Trump's actions. For instance I've always respected Pelosci and Shumer. It applies to folks like Maxine, Schiff, ect...  oh and a few in this forum. 

I don't recall "plenty of examples" of Trump slammed for "good deeds."  Visiting the troops? 

In any case, among all the problems currently faced by the Republic, an occasional slamming Trump for good deeds seems about the least consequential.  Claiming this as some kind of problem just muddles the many lines Trump does cross and the valid critique he receives for it. What could "obsessive" criticism of the P-grabber who pulled us out of Syria on impulse look like?

Seems like the thread has taken a healthy turn towards the real problem facing US voters, which is not "leftism" but "never 'leftism'".

[*bfine32*]

(12-02-2019, 05:56 PM)Dill Wrote: I don't recall "plenty of examples" of Trump slammed for "good deeds."  Visiting the troops? 

In any case, among all the problems currently faced by the Republic, an occasional slamming Trump for good deeds seems about the least consequential.  Claiming this as some kind of problem just muddles the many lines Trump does cross and the valid critique he receives for it. What could "obsessive" criticism of the P-grabber who pulled us out of Syria on impulse look like?

Seems like the thread has taken a healthy turn towards the real problem facing US voters, which is not "leftism" but "never 'leftism'".

Oh, I spoke against Trump's decision to pull out of Syria. I was just surprised in the allies I had in this critcizim. 

But as the far Left thinks: Nothing wrong with an occasional slamming of good deeds. 

As to what it looks like: Hit the back arrow and breeze through a few pages of this forum. 

I have seen no one saying the Left is a problem; I see it saying too far from center (Left) is a problem. As to "never Leftisim" BS. I've already mentioned Dems I'd vote for over Trump.

Now your turn: What Dem candidate would you vote for Trump over? 

[*bfine32*]

(12-02-2019, 05:39 PM)hollodero Wrote: I'd say his foreign policies are quite radical as in that they are unique and totally unfettered by any policy (or idea) whatsoever. I find abandoning allies over night radical, his tearing up valid contracts radical, his apparent orientation towards authoritarian countries radical. Also I find the idea of a wall along the whole mexican border a bit radical, same goes for separating children from their parents. I find a "muslim ban" radical. I find his booming deficit radical, as well as some of his economic ideas (like banking on a constant 3% GDP growth or his idea of trade wars). I find his position on climate change radical, and his negligence of any ecological issue. Yeah there might be more if I were to think harder, but these are some examples most of which should actually count.

Radical is in the eye of the beholder. I remember many thinking Obama's views/actions on illegal immigration to be radical. Seems the more we disagree with something, the more radical it is. 

[Dill]

(12-02-2019, 03:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: In that sense, absolutely.  In the sense that they can advance far left programs like paying off college debt, socialist medicine with no private insurance, essentially eliminating the country's borders, drastically decriminalizing crimes against property, etc. they are not at all.  For all of Trump's foibles, of which there are many, his policy positions are not that radical.  His words/tweets are completely beyond the pale and he is clearly comfortable with using his position to his advantage, but his policy positions are pretty standard GOP positions.  His biggest difference with GOP orthodoxy is in the foreign policy sector.

Perhaps if I lived in CA I would be more familiar with some of the above-mentioned "leftism." I am not aware of any push to decriminalize property crimes, etc.  Not sure what "essentially" eliminating borders consists in, nor how representative of the Dem party such positions are. 

But paying off college debt and "socialist medicine" have the ring of public schooling, social security, GI bill and Medicare--programs once opposed as "socialism" but which 20 years after implementation become 3rd rails no politician wants to touch.  

Foreign policy blunders have far more disaster potential for the US economy and democracy than whatever "socialist medicine" is likely to be. Some 10% of the GOP have recognized this this. I think it the primary reason for never-Trumpers.  

(12-02-2019, 03:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What people like you routinely fail to grasp is that a Trump voter can be aware of all these things, completely acknowledge them, and still prefer Trump to an Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders for pure policy reasons. 

Trump voters may be very aware of the "dangers of socialism," for sure (and much less aware of Trump's consequences for foreign policy).  Their big donors know it means higher taxes for them.  Trump and Fox have chosen to emphasize these dangers as part of the risk of opposing Trump.
 
So would you agree that fear of "socialism" plays an important part in keeping Trump in office, in keeping his appeal?