You moderate Repubs should join the Democratic Party, here's why.

Doesn't matter what you name it. Classic, Democratic....it's all Socialism and it all leads to the same place. Dictatorships.

 

They only know how to counter a party thats as (or more) authoritarian as they are. Trump isn't forcing anyone to do **** (except not burn down Federal buildings, apparently) and the only way they can respond is 'wayciss!!'

 

Actually on this site it literally is a copy/paste. All I ever do when I put a picture to this site in fact. Never even use the image tag on the toolbar.

 

Spokesman: The following was a paid advertisement from the Democrat Party. (Rapid and quietly added disclaimer) None of the information in the advertise is actual factual, and should not be used in forming an opinion. (Just joshing you.)

For every Republican that has spoken out against President Trump, I can name a Democrat that has spoken out against Obama. So, that is a nothing burger.

The claim that the moderates are still in control of the Democrat is just ludicrous. There are no longer any moderate Democrats in the party. They are all Pelosi lapdogs. In my state, Abigail Sandberg ran on a platform that she would work across the aisle. That hasn't happened. Like every other Congressional Democrat member, she has voted as Pelosi directed. Now, she is back here running for reelection. She is trying to say that she did work with the Republicans. Senator Tim Kaine made the same claim when he was running in 2016. Of course, that never happened either.

In the end it all boils down to one question. Do I believe in the DNC platform? The answer is a resounding, no.

Your post reminded be of a conversation I had with one of my drivers that happened to be a Muslim. He was a very good driver, and we got along great. But one day he came into my office after he completed running. During our conversation he asked me whether I would convert to Islam to save my life. Be response was no. He pressed, you know you could convert, and still practice your true faith in private. Again I said no. Your post reminded me of that conversation, because you are advocating the same thing. Join the DNC, and still hold onto my conservative values. Why would I join a party that I do not agree with?

 

There are three republican groups, the Lincoln Project, Staff of 43 against Trump, and Right Side PAC ( headed by Scaramucci) all of whom have formed PACs, and now are getting donations to spend MILLIONS in TV advertising to either vote against Trump or for Biden or both, not to mention Bloomberg, who was the republican governor of NYC, who switched parties mainly because of Trump, who has vowed to spend 10s of millions to help Biden.

so, unless can you name democrats who rival the above against Obama, I'll file your comment in the 'false comparisons' file.

Nothing burger my ass.

 

I'd call that embedded linking. But, to each his own. But, that's not what I did, I uploaded an image.

 

It does matter, and it's not all the same. Classic socialism advocates state ownership of all the means of production and distribution.
Democratic Socialism does not, noting that Democratic Socialism is not the controlling segment of the democratic party.

No, dictatorships are far more associated with extreme right wing. Look, I'm sick of this argument, you guys bring it up over and over again, and it's a ****ing untruth. Look what a search brought up. 'right wing' turns up a lot with the word fascist, maybe because the two have a strong association.
There is NO authoritarianism in democratic socialism, NONE. But, the way Trump acts, the guy lavishes praise on dictators. "KJU and I are in love" Trump says, just after he sent one of our citizens home in a coffiin.

 

Yeah, I see a pattern. It is that Alex Schiller, and you, do not the issues. There are too many of these to addresses individually, but allow me to hit on some obvious fallacies made by Alex Schiller.

The Democrats have proven time and time again that they do not support police officers. From Obama stated that the Cambridge Police "acted stupidly", to the calls to disband the police. They show that the DNC does not support the police.

Jumping further down, Schiller said that the Democrats are for protecting religious freedom? That is a truck load of male bovine excrement. The Democrats has forced prayer and bible studies from school. Yet they are pushing to have the Koran taught in the schools. Biden himself said that just the other day. We can't even have "Christmas parties" at out work places. Now, they have to be holiday parties, and don't dare be heard wishing someone a Merry Christmas.

When the IRS sent out the Stimulus payments, they included that 1.1 million dead people were sent a check. Why? Because the country does a piss poor job of keeping up with who is living, and who has died. The voter rolls are no different. Most of the rolls have not been updated in decades, if ever. How many voter ballots will be sent to people that do not still reside in that precinct or to deceased individual. Do you really believe that someone would not fill out the ballots, and send them back? Allowing people to vote by absentee ballots will generate millions of fake votes.

Just to name a few. The fact is none of Schiller's statement are truthful in nature.

 

What about Latinos for Trump, Democrats for Trump and my personal favorite Blacks for Trump. So, yes!!! A big over cooked nothing burger.

 

Socialism, classic or "democratic" is not about state ownership. That's Communism. Look it up. Nevermind, you wont. Here.

LINK: What’s The Difference Between Socialism vs. Communism?

A "democratic socialism" is no different that "classical socialism". They both start out the same...the community owning everything. And in the end they both end up dictatorship as has been proven time and again. Venezuela started out as a democracy. Moved towards socialism with democracy intact, and ended up as a dictatorship. Ostensibly its still "democratic" in that the President is still elected, at least on paper.

Btw, your example is not of "right wing". Your example is of "FASCIST dictatorship right wing". Here's what a search of just plain "right wing" is. Which is what you set as the search term in your post. You had to literally add in words to direct it to where you wanted it to go.

 

That is a matter of definition not activity.

 

This is the part with which I agree. But as unimportant and Antifa and BLM are, they still need to be rounded up and prosecuted when they riot. The rest of your post was just partisan talking points. Contrary to what you said, I am not a partisan. A conservative for sure but not a partisan. I don't even approve of political parties.

 

Condescending much?

 

That ought to get you another 50 votes...

 

If you go back to the GOP primaries, you'll find that conservatives was the only faction within the Republican Party Trump didn't win. They went to Cruz. During the general, history shows that on average 90% of Republicans and Democrats vote for their party's candidates regardless of who that candidate is.

In 2016 89% of Democrats went to Hillary, 88% of Republicans to Trump. A bit below the 90% average, but you can look back to 2012 and see 92% of Democrats voting for Obama, 93% of Republicans for Romney and so on back.

It was the non-affiliated, swing voters, the less to non-partisan, the less ideological, independents that put Trump into the White House. Especially in the three deciding states. Independents went for Trump 48-41 in Pennsylvania, 50-40 in Wisconsin and 52-35 in Michigan. Independents allowed Trump to win those states overcoming a huge democratic party affiliation advantage in all three.

Regardless, 2016 was such a unique election in which both major parties chose two candidates no one wanted to become the next president outside of their avid supporters. 2016 set the record for the lowest favorable and highest unfavorable ratings for any major party candidate in our history. This is probably another reason why folks are deserting both major parties. They represent no one except the hard core left and right. Here's the list.


Highest to lowest favorable/unfavorable ratings of each major party presidential candidate.

Favorable/unfavorable

1956 Eisenhower 84/12%

1964 LBJ 81/13%

1976 Carter 81/16%

1960 JFK 80/14%

1960 Nixon 79/16%

1968 Nixon 79/22%

1976 Ford 79/20%

1972 Nixon 76/21%

1968 Humphrey 72/28%

1984 Reagan 70/30%

1980 Carter 68/32%

1984 Mondale 66/34%

1980 Reagan 64/31%

1992 Bill Clinton 64/33%

2008 Obama 62/35%

2012 Obama 62/37%

1956 Stevenson 61/31%

2004 G.W. Bush 61/39%

2008 McCain 60/35%

1992 G.H.W. Bush 59/40%

2000 G.W. Bush 58/38%

2004 Kerry 57/40%

1996 Bill Clinton 56/42%

1988 G.H.W. Bush 56/39%

2000 Gore 55/45%

2012 Romney 55/43%

1972 McGovern 55/41%

1996 Dole 54/45%

1988 Dukakis 50/45%

1964 Goldwater 43/47%

2016 Hillary Clinton 38/56%

2016 Donald Trump 36/60%

If the current trends continue, we're headed to where the Democratic Party will retain approximately 20% of the electorate identifying with them, the hard core leftist with around 20% still affiliating with the Republican Party, the hard core right with everyone else with no where to go. No political party to call home. There's no chance on forming a viable third party either. Republicans and Democrats write our election laws and do so a mutual protection act. If there is one thing both parties agree on, it's no viable third party will ever rise. They have their monopoly and are bound to keep it.

Majority in U.S. Still Say a Third Party Is Needed

https://news.gallup.com/poll/244094...utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication


It seems to me, the smaller both major parties get, the more power they have over our electoral system. get ready to wild lurches to the left followed by a wild lurch to the right and back to the left as independents vote in one party one election and vote them out the next. I think most Americans want a steady road with little lurches, but that isn't what the two major parties offer. No huge right turns or ups and no huge left turns or downs, just a steady road more or less in the middle with some deviations which is perfectly okay.

 

Campaign promises typically indicate the deeply held political desires of a particular candidate. The realities of governing often times temper and stifle many of those promises, but they are indicative of the legitimate political positions of that candidate. A platform is a little different in that it is carefully crafted by the party in concert with the candidate to sum up the mutually agreed upon principles in which that candidate is supposed to support along with the party. A candidate may not necessarily always make campaign promises based off of all platform positions, but all of those platform positions are promises being made to various constituencies within their party.

If you honestly believe that a candidate is not beholden to their party, their platform, and the various constituencies that crafted that platform, you do not have a firm grasp on how presidential politics work. While I do not want to hijack this thread by getting too deep into the weeds for the off topic tangent of a President being beholden to their constituents, A perfect example would be the radical movement afoot currently that has seen leftist mobs tearing down statues across the country. Has Biden condemned these actions or suggested anything to stop them? Absolutely not. He has said not one word, and the leftist media is most certainly not going to force him to take a stance (what a shock). Why?.....because he is beholden to those constituencies and the absolute last thing he would ever do is to anger that constituency, especially this close to an election. He will continue to ignore this far left lunacy and ultimately not do or suggest one thing to stop their actions. While ignoring those actions may not be a part of a "campaign promise", it most certainly is a tacit approval that incentivizes more rather than less of those inarguably far leftist actions. If one wants to incentivize MORE statues being torn down, Biden is most certainly your guy. If one wants less to incentivize less, then Trump would be your choice. The actions being taken by those mobs and the subsequent refusal of Democrat politicians to condemn or stop them, is a quintessential illustration of the far left taking over the Democrat Party.

 

I don't know about "old guard" conservatives but I do know conservatives, and you are not talking about them and nobody that you name are conservative, though a couple used to be.

I don't know about "moderate" Republicans, but I know establishment Republicans and most could easily be Democrats because after all they are all members of the same inside-the-beltway fraternity.

 

Good points, but again, as you correctly mentioned, this is going on because we are "especially close to an election" and for this reason I don't think it is a true situation of the far left taking over the Democratic Party. I think it appears this way and I can understand why people feel it's happening, but I don't believe that it is actually happening.

I believe it is a peculiar election and the party smarted up from 2016 when Bernie Bros defected in sufficient number to be a decisive factor in the three states that granted to Trump his Electoral College victory (as evidenced by research published at the time on Newsweek; I don't have the link on me now but it circulated widely and is known to many). Biden AND the DNC clearly want, for now, to keep those far leftists engaged and willing to vote for Biden in November instead of defecting, voting for Trump, staying home, or voting third party like in 2016, because they know they can't win without them.

So, yes, they will draw a platform that appeals to them, will publicize agreements between Biden and Sanders, will promise a prominent position to AOC, and all that... but don't forget how they got organized themselves with the drop-outs and endorsements before Super Tuesday exactly to DEFEAT the far left wing of the party, so I don't for a moment trust all this good will they are showing to the far left right now.

Also remember that Biden, who said he won't run for re-election if elected, will be a lame duck president from day one, with nothing to lose, so I don't necessarily think that he will abide by his campaign platform or his campaign promises.

You imply that I'm clueless about presidential politics... well, I know one thing about Politics in general: it is in a very large proportion, the art of deception to achieve power. And I didn't say that campaign promises are the same as a platform as you implied. I said that platforms are "a little more than campaign promises" so I didn't consider them equal. They have more weight than mere campaign promises, true, but in my opinion, not much more, because once in power, things change.

A clear example: BOTH parties posture a lot about illegal immigration before elections, and both extensively include measures to deal with the problem in their platforms, and make campaign promises in rallies and debates (from different perspectives - the Dems trying to ease everything up, the Repubs trying to tighten everything up). So, pray tell, what happens once they are elected? Strictly nothing, not even when one of the parties controls the White House and both chambers of Congress. They pretend to engage even in some bi-partisan efforts and then it all fails, doesn't get voted or gets voted down by Congress, and the problem persists.

Why? Because the parties WANT to keep it alive, given that it is a very convenient tool to rally their bases and motivate their bases to go vote. If they were to fix it for good, the issue wouldn't be there any longer for the next campaign. So, you seem to give an enormous weight to the platforms... well, these platforms have ALWAYS included extensive items about immigration, and what was the follow-up after the elections were over? Strictly nothing. QED.

 

Excellent and insightful post.

 

One can only hope that eventually people will get so fed up that it will catch on

 

Both parties are completely full of **** and only seek power for power's sake. My beliefs tend to line up more with republican views than democrats, so I tend to vote for them, though not universally. The whole reason I voted for Trump is that both parties hated him, and I hate both parties, so he was my guy. He hasn't disappointed.

 

You know very well I was talking about Trumpers, but them too as a matter of fact.

The majority of people are not even into politics, most normies regard people like us as dangerous perverts who need to be watched. I heard one guy say that we ought to be made to register and inform the neighbors.

 

I know what you were talking about and I disagreed. Sorry.

 

I see it from a different perspective. It is ultimately the parties that rule the day. The candidates are largely just window dressing that serve to push a marketing message for the party. Just because John Mcain and Mitt Romney were likely the most legitimately moderate candidates in modern politics, does not change the reality that a vote for John Mcain or Mitt Romney was a vote for the agenda of Mitch Mconnell, Paul Ryan, and the Republican establishment at that time.

Similarly, a vote for Joe Biden is a vote for the agenda of Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. The radicals in the house are clearly running Nancy Pelosi whom is trying to cling to her speakership with every last fiber of her being. Antifa is clearly running wild at this moment and everyone from Nancy Pelosi to Joe Biden are deathly afraid of speaking against them, despite the fact that their actions actually have very low approval with the population as a whole. That is a quintessential example of the radical left being in control of the party. While all Democrats on the debate stage were falling all over themselves to show that they were further left than the next guy, I readily admit that Biden took a more moderate position than Bernie or Warren....but does that really make a difference?.... I say no. Bernie would have never been able to pass Medicare for All, nor the ambitious Green New Deal. Legislatively, there is nowhere near the support necessary to successfully pass such far left ideals. In truth, the realities of governing (particularly with the Senate rules) mean that you can only move the country 2 or 3 clicks to the left or right in any given session, and somebody like Bernie would take the country the same 2 or 3 clicks to the left as would Biden, despite the fact that Bernie wants to go 20 clicks and Biden wants to go 15 clicks. Legislative realities rule the day. From a non legislative standpoint such as things like a response to Antifa and tearing down government statues, or defunding police departments etc., Biden is every bit as beholden to the far left as is Bernie. Dont let the marketing message fool you.

 

Again you make some good points but in my opinion not entirely. I simply can't believe or endorse the notion that Biden is as beholden to the far left as is Bernie. I am quite convinced that if elected, the next day he won't be even considering any support for the idiotic idea of defunding the police. We all know that politicians say a lot of stuff during campaigns but don't always follow through, and Biden has always been a rather law and order guy.