Democrats Favor More Moderate Party; GOP, More Conservative

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

You sound like an average moderate, in that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You're skin deep on policy so no surprise that 

Quote

But  (if I could vote), a more-socialist party in the Democrats  (such as that advocated by the Socialists) might even make me hold me nose and vote for Trump an d  the generally intolerant-of people different than t hem - GOP

 

[SaysWho?]

7 minutes ago, mikechorney said:

Do you understand that I didn't write the summary in the OP?  That was written by Gallup.

Marijuana has nothing to do with Socialism.  There are socialists that don't want Marijuana legalized (i.e in Russia).

It doesn't matter what I think.  It matters what the Democrats who want the part to be more "moderate", and independents think.  That is, if the goal is to re-take control of the house and the presidency in 2020.

My rationale on what?  I've never personally stated an opinion on M4/UBI or basic income in Alaska.  When have I ever used the term "extreme"?  Where is this coming from?

I said "More evidence that the new socialist bent from new congressmembers is likely to cause more harm than good to the Democrat's 2020 prospects-- and they are probably actually playing into Trump's hand.  "  That was specifically targeted at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib.

 

Arguing whether ACA is "socialist" or not is an academic/semantics discussion that I don't really have the desire to get into.  

Argue with Gallup (who wrote the summary) and the self-identified "moderate" Democrats who answered the poll on what the strict definition of "more moderate" is, and what they want.

 

Winning elections (and getting rid of Trump) should be the priority -- and appealing to a "wider"-breadth of people is what I am advocating.  Understanding what those people want is probably the first step towards that.  Because, based on the 2016CY election, and not even being able to defeat a terrible candidate like Trump, indicates that the leadership of the Democratic party doesn't (or at least didn't) get it.

 

I can tell you as someone (if he was eligible to vote in the U.S.) would be considered an independent, I'm scared to death of the new "socialist bent" that I am seeing in the Democratic party.

 

I am definitely a liberal capitalist (who believes that government should have a significant role in place where efficient markets and price transparency don't exist - such as health care, roads, water, etc.).  But (if I could vote), a more-socialist party in the Democrats (such as that advocated by the Socialists) might even make me hold me nose and vote for Trump and the generally intolerant-of people different than them-GOP.  Am I representative of "moderates"? Probably some, but probably not the majority.

 

"I didn't say extreme. I said far-left." Dude, this is as bad as when your wife says, "I didn't say I was mad. I said I was upset."

 

You keep arguing in two threads now that Democrats should be more moderate, but you won't say how, and now you're passing the buck on these threads to Gallup? How do you appeal to the "wider" breadth if you have no idea what that is or why something is moderate or far-left or socialist (which, btw, they kicked Republicans' teeth in on all levels of government in 2017 and 2018)?

 

"I've never said anything about M4A or UBI." Uhhh.. that's kind of important in deciding if Democrats should be "moderate" or not! Their proposal for Medicare-for-All has widespread support, yet you're implying it should be abandoned because Democratic Socialists support it. Democratic Socialists in the US (I don't care about Russia) support marijuana legalization in the US. I don't know a single one who doesn't. All the people you're scared of support it. But we shouldn't do that because socialism? A Republican state like Alaska has a basic income program, and socialists support UBI. You have to be able to talk about policy in order to talk about the direction of the party and how moderate/progressive they should be. Without any knowledge about policy, liberal/moderate talk is meaningless.

 

If you can't talk policy, then you can't complain if a party is too extreme because you have to define what makes it extreme. Democrats who go "gotta be moderate!" but can't describe how are a dime a dozen, dude.

[AbsolutSurgen]

1 hour ago, SaysWho? said:

 

"I didn't say extreme. I said far-left." Dude, this is as bad as when your wife says, "I didn't say I was mad. I said I was upset."

 

Dude, that would've been after you went on a long rant about insanity. 

But seriously, where did I say far left?  You are consistently attributing things to me that I didn't say.

1 hour ago, SaysWho? said:

You keep arguing in two threads now that Democrats should be more moderate, but you won't say how, and now you're passing the buck on these threads to Gallup? How do you appeal to the "wider" breadth if you have no idea what that is or why something is moderate or far-left or socialist (which, btw, they kicked Republicans' teeth in on all levels of government in 2017 and 2018)?

You are asking me to identify the policies they should implement.  Gallup wrote it -- arguing that I did is disingenuous. 

My point-of view is that the Democratic Party needs to distance itself from the Socialists contingent, who appear to be gaining more power, (at least they are gaining more airtime on 60 minutes and CNN.)

The poll data is that Democrats (in general) want the party to be more moderate.

1 hour ago, SaysWho? said:

"I've never said anything about M4A or UBI." Uhhh.. that's kind of important in deciding if Democrats should be "moderate" or not! Their proposal for Medicare-for-All has widespread support, yet you're implying it should be abandoned because Democratic Socialists support it.

I never said or implied that.

1 hour ago, SaysWho? said:

Democratic Socialists in the US (I don't care about Russia) support marijuana legalization in the US. I don't know a single one who doesn't. All the people you're scared of support it. But we shouldn't do that because socialism? 

I'm not scared of anyone.  Legalizing marijuana has nothing to do with socialism -- regardless of what the socialists you know believe.  There are lots of capitalists who want to legalize marijuana as well.

If the Democratic point-of-view was that all marijuana had to be produced on government owned farms, processed in government owned factories, distributed through a government owned transportation network and sold in government owned stores.  That would be socialist -- and I would be completely against it.

 

Socialists are also (in general) very supportive of the color red -- they like it a lot.  I also like the color red, I don't dislike it because socialists also like it.  I am not against something because socialists like it -- I reject socialism.  (Again, I mentioned before, that I support government intervention in cases where efficient markets are not possible (such as when there are asymmetries of information between buyer/seller and when transparency of pricing does not exist).

 

1 hour ago, SaysWho? said:

If you can't talk policy, then you can't complain if a party is too extreme because you have to define what makes it extreme. Democrats who go "gotta be moderate!" but can't describe how are a dime a dozen, dude.

I have been very vocal about the Democratic Socialists that are rising in the Democratic party, that are members of the Democratic Socialists of America.  Quotes from their website:

"Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them.  Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives."

 

"Although a long-term goal of socialism is to eliminate all but the most enjoyable kinds of labor, we recognize that unappealing jobs will long remain. These tasks would be spread among as many people as possible rather than distributed on the basis of class, race, ethnicity, or gender, as they are under capitalism. And this undesirable work should be among the best, not the least, rewarded work within the economy. For now, the burden should be placed on the employer to make work desirable by raising wages, offering benefits and improving the work environment. In short, we believe that a combination of social, economic, and moral incentives will motivate people to work."

 

"No, we are not a separate party. Like our friends and allies in the feminist, labor, civil rights, religious, and community organizing movements, many of us have been active in the Democratic Party. We work with those movements to strengthen the party’s left wing, represented by the Congressional Progressive Caucus...  . We hope that at some point in the future, in coalition with our allies, an alternative national party will be viable. For now, we will continue to support progressives who have a real chance at winning elections, which usually means left-wing Democrats."

 

I reject this point-of-view -- and believe that most Americans do as well.  I don't support the widespread nationalization of private enterprises into "worker-owned cooperatives".   If you want to use "extreme" policies -- I would consider this one.  And these are the published POV of both Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib, and the organization they have publicly belong to and support.

 

[SaysWho?]

Holy shit.

 

Dude, the fact that you're getting defensive over me saying you're calling the DSA extreme or far-left.... do you not realize that by complaining about

 

We literally cannot have an argument over what the Democratic Party should be unless we talk policy, what is and isn't socialist vs. moderate. You seem to have a fingernail-deep grasp of the issues, which is why you can't really quantity what you're talking about.

 

Also, it's not socialists "I know." Liberals and socialists are marijuana supporters.

 

 

Republicans: 51/45 Illegal/Legal

Democrats: 28/69 Illegal/Legal

 

The irrelevant part is that you know capitalists who favor its legalization. Cool, but a higher percentage of socialists do. Doesn't that tell you that something being a socialist policy *gasp* isn't automatically bad, aka Medicare/Social Security that you likely support?

[AbsolutSurgen]

4 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

Holy shit.

 

Dude, the fact that you're getting defensive over me saying you're calling the DSA extreme or far-left.... do you not realize that by complaining about

 

We literally cannot have an argument over what the Democratic Party should be unless we talk policy, what is and isn't socialist vs. moderate. You seem to have a fingernail-deep grasp of the issues, which is why you can't really quantity what you're talking about.

  

Also, it's not socialists "I know." Liberals and socialists are marijuana supporters.

 

 

Republicans: 51/45 Illegal/Legal

Democrats: 28/69 Illegal/Legal

 

The irrelevant part is that you know capitalists who favor its legalization. Cool, but a higher percentage of socialists do. Doesn't that tell you that something being a socialist policy *gasp* isn't automatically bad, aka Medicare/Social Security that you likely support?

So the Republicans who support marijuana are socialists?

[SaysWho?]

See that thing with the numbers and the illegal/legal thing? A wee bit important.

 

Socialists support marijuana legalization. Does that mean it's a bad idea because it's coming from them? It's a simple question. You can't talk about where the party should be unless you can discuss policy, because that kind of is important in defining a party.

 

I think the reason that you have no opinion of M4A/UBI, two things socialists support (but progressives do, and are coming around to the latter), is that you don't actually know about what they are. And if so, you can't talk about supporting more moderation or socialism, since you also seem to not understand if the ACA is, Medicare, SS, and a litany of social programs.

[marioandsonic]