• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Democrat, Republican or Independent?

November how will you vote?

  • Democrat

    Votes: 40 56.3%
  • Republican

    Votes: 6 8.5%
  • Indepedent

    Votes: 25 35.2%

  • Total voters
    71
  • Poll closed .
Oh, I read it, I just don't get it. Its about the weakest insult I've ever heard of. Even noticing it seems crazy to me, also using it thinking anyone would be insulted by it seems crazy. Or using it as some weird attempt at newspeak to convince Americans that the Democrats aren't democratic? Maybe its because I lack any real attachment to a political party?

I'll quit now.
 
I think Clinton and Clinton-era Dems moved the party further right to respond to that loss of touch in national elections. Besides, bombing barely-out-of-the-stone-age countries is fun! Why should the GOP have all the fun? But did Clinton move the party? Or did the party move to Clinton. Let's remember why he was so successful (or considered successful) in Arkansas. Stealing businesses from rust belt states with lower taxes and no union problems? That's pretty far from progressivism.

I'm really not sure. I know it was part of this:
https://truthout.org/articles/third-way-democrats-are-trying-to-push-the-party-rightward/

Here, so-called centrist “New Democrats” adopted a very similar approach. For many years, Democrats proudly associated themselves with the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), a powerful group founded in the 1980s that sought to build a Democratic Party “liberated”* from labor and grounded in “support for free market and free trade economics … an end to the politics of ‘entitlement’ [and] a rejection of affirmative action.”

At the height of its power the DLC was the dominant force in the party, boasting President Bill Clinton and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair as its acolytes.

The average voters didn't know what was going on. It seems to me like a rightwing infiltration and takeover.

That was preceded by this, as well:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...-democrats-killed-their-populist-soul/504710/

It was January 1975, and the Watergate Babies had arrived in Washington looking for blood. The Watergate Babies—as the recently elected Democratic congressmen were known—were young, idealistic liberals who had been swept into office on a promise to clean up government, end the war in Vietnam, and rid the nation’s capital of the kind of corruption and dirty politics the Nixon White House had wrought.

What’s more, the new members were antiwar, not necessarily anti-bank. “Our generation did not know the Depression,” then-Representative Paul Tsongas said. “The populism of the 1930s doesn’t really apply to the 1970s,” argued Pete Stark, a California member who launched his political career by affixing a giant peace sign onto the roof of the bank he owned.

Not all on the left were swayed. Barbara Jordan, the renowned representative from Texas, spoke eloquently in Patman’s defense. Ralph Nader raged at the betrayal of a warrior against corporate power. And California’s Henry Waxman, one of the few populist Watergate Babies, broke with his class, puzzled by all the liberals who opposed Patman’s chairmanship. Still, Patman was crushed. Of the three chairmen who fell, Patman lost by the biggest margin. A week later, the bank-friendly members of the committee completed their takeover. Leonor Sullivan—a Missouri populist, the only woman on the Banking Committee, and the author of the Fair Credit Reporting Act—was removed from her position as the subcommittee chair in revenge for her support of Patman. “A revolution has occurred,” noted The Washington Post.

Indeed, a revolution had occurred. But the contours of that revolution would not be clear for decades.

The result today is a paradox. At the same time that the nation has achieved perhaps the most tolerant culture in U.S. history, the destruction of the anti-monopoly and anti-bank tradition in the Democratic Party has also cleared the way for the greatest concentration of economic power in a century. This is not what the Watergate Babies intended when they dethroned Patman as chairman of the Banking Committee. But it helped lead them down that path. The story of Patman’s ousting is part of the larger story of how the Democratic Party helped to create today’s shockingly disillusioned and sullen public, a large chunk of whom is now marching for Donald Trump.
You should read the whole thing if you're unfamiliar with the story.
 
Other than you, who’s suggested this and why? It makes zero sense because the Democrats are already a slightly right of center party centrist party.

Me, because a centrist third party would allow for the democratic party to move back to the left on economics. I'm not claiming it definitely would, but I can see in my head how it might. And it might "fringe-ify" Trump's GOP to the margins, where it belongs.
 
Oh, I read it, I just don't get it. Its about the weakest insult I've ever heard of. Even noticing it seems crazy to me, also using it thinking anyone would be insulted by it seems crazy. Or using it as some weird attempt at newspeak to convince Americans that the Democrats aren't democratic? Maybe its because I lack any real attachment to a political party?

I'll quit now.

It's just a way for Republicans to kind of troll Democrats.

Pollster Frank Luntz tested the phrase with a focus group in 2001, and concluded that the only people who really disliked the epithet were highly partisan Democrats.[12] Political analyst Charlie Cook attributed modern use of the term to force of habit rather than a deliberate epithet by Republicans.[13] Journalist Ruth Marcus stated that Republicans likely only continue to employ the term because Democrats dislike it,[3] and Hertzberg calls use of the term "a minor irritation" and also "the partisan equivalent of flashing a gang sign".[11]
 
yes, it became right-leaning.

This is usual, btw, for Presidents to moderate their party politics towards the other party.
Trump is a freaky exception in this.
Do you think that W moderated his views?

He did a fine job in the greatest crisis, no doubt. But other than that, I don't recall any leftward progression.
 
I'm really not sure. I know it was part of this:
https://truthout.org/articles/third-way-democrats-are-trying-to-push-the-party-rightward/


The average voters didn't know what was going on. It seems to me like a rightwing infiltration and takeover.

That was preceded by this, as well:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...-democrats-killed-their-populist-soul/504710/



You should read the whole thing if you're unfamiliar with the story.

I think that is reflected in how the "anti-globalist" types have gravitated to Trump. Even though he really is a globalist, with who he feels are his buddies internationally, he doesn't have the integration with the bulk of big business that the Clintons have had. His business ties have been all real estate and entertainment, i.e. where he makes his money.
 
I think that is reflected in how the "anti-globalist" types have gravitated to Trump. Even though he really is a globalist, with who he feels are his buddies internationally, he doesn't have the integration with the bulk of big business that the Clintons have had. His business ties have been all real estate and entertainment, i.e. where he makes his money.

His policies do not align with "globalists" sorry.
 
Do you think that W moderated his views?

Eerrrrrrr... sorta. It's complicated.

George W. Bush was a bad President. I'm not here to defend him or start some revisionist views on his presidency. But if you go listen to that man talk now, you can tell that being President changed him. I won't say he learned something on an intellectual level or that he was a better leader later in his term than in the beginning, but you can't deny the man did at least feel the weight of the responsibility he carried on some level and it did affect him. You can't deny that George W. Bush wasn't... eeeeehhh I don't know if "humbled" is exactly the right word and maybe has negative connotations I'm not intending, but it's sorta close, during his tenure. The weight and meaning of the position he was in did get through to him.

I think that's why rank and file members of the parties are sometimes perplexed when two Presidents from differing parties become friends or at least allies on some stripe. But regardless of how ingrained you are into political tribalism that simple role of President does transcend all that to some degree politics and sometimes, the most Republican Republican or Democratic Democrat has to turn to someone who's sat in that seat for their viewpoint, not their opinion per se, but their viewpoint.

That's what makes me the most angry about Trump.

The fact that throughout his entire Presidency he has not once acted like he's learned anything or changed as a person. Not only has Trump from all accounts not so much as spoken a word to a former President since taking office (which is really, really weird and troubling when you think about it) he hasn't change a bit. Not one even brief moment of anything that could be called introspection or a sense that the weight of the office is getting through to him at all.

The fact that the Presidency of the sole remaining superpower in the world is not affecting this man at all, on any level bothers me more than anything else for some reason.
 
Eerrrrrrr... sorta. It's complicated.

George W. Bush was a bad President. I'm not here to defend him or start some revisionist views on his presidency. But if you go listen to that man talk now, you can tell that being President changed him. I won't say he learned something on an intellectual level or that he was a better leader later in his term than in the beginning, but you can't deny the man did at least feel the weight of the responsibility he carried on some level and it did affect him. You can't deny that George W. Bush wasn't... eeeeehhh I don't know if "humbled" is exactly the right word and maybe has negative connotations I'm not intending, but it's sorta close, during his tenure. The weight and meaning of the position he was in did get through to him.

I think that's why rank and file members of the parties are sometimes perplexed when two Presidents from differing parties become friends or at least allies on some stripe. But regardless of how ingrained you are into political tribalism that simple role of President does transcend all that to some degree politics and sometimes, the most Republican Republican or Democratic Democrat has to turn to someone who's sat in that seat for their viewpoint, not their opinion per se, but their viewpoint.

That's what makes me the most angry about Trump.

The fact that throughout his entire Presidency he has not once acted like he's learned anything or changed as a person. Not only has Trump from all accounts not so much as spoken a word to a former President since taking office (which is really, really weird and troubling when you think about it) he hasn't change a bit. Not one even brief moment of anything that could be called introspection or a sense that the weight of the office is getting through to him at all.

The fact that the Presidency of the sole remaining superpower in the world is not affecting this man at all, on any level bothers me more than anything else for some reason.

Dubya, at least sometimes, actually acted and spoke with presidential decorum:

Bush:



Trump:

 
Yes they do.
See the massive intellectual property protection in the New NAFTA.

His policies do not align with "globalists" sorry.
One of the many issues with Trump is that his words do not correlate well with his actions/policy.
He is a Mercantilist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism

in other words: a throwback.
That appears to be an accurate understanding of his views on economics, its also one of the few areas where he's been consistent for decades. He has a very zero sum view of trade.
 
Trump makes his MAGA merch in China.

Err... not quite. A bunch of MAGA merch is made in China, but not Trump's campaign hats, apparently, which is what's usually being referred to there. Related to that, though, the Trump campaign may have bought flags from China for 2016 and looks like it has done so in preparation for 2020. Most Trump merch in general, though, looks like it's made outside the US.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom