Is the division in American politics the result mostly from movement to the left by the left?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
On the whole we've gone left. LGBT marriage (the right should and seem to have embraced this somewhat), marijuana legal in many states (the right has warmed up to this too), private companies making semi-socially acceptable rules allowing biological men to pull their prick out in the stall next to your eight year old daughter if he believes he's a woman, the push for government provided health care and college. We see socialists and anti-capitalists becoming mainstream in the left now, what was radical not long ago is now the norm with the Democrats. Even elected lawmakers now are of this variety, pushes to dismantle ICE, the idea that a wall on our border is somehow racist, etc. If anything this has pulled the Republicans more to a more moderate place on the whole, and I like that. Unfortunately the left has jumped the shark, though. Gone too far left of common sense.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,129
48,196
136
On the whole we've gone left. LGBT marriage, marijuana legal in many states, private companies making semi-socially acceptable rules allowing biological men to pull their prick out in the stall next to your eight year old daughter if he believes he's a woman, the push for government provided health care and college. We see socialists and anti-capitalists becoming mainstream in the left now, what was radical not long ago is now the norm with the Democrats. If anything this has pulled the Republicans more to a more moderate place on the whole, and I like that. Unfortunately the left has jumped the shark, though. Gone too far left of common sense.

lol, no. Republicans have continued to radicalize to the right in a way that no developed country has ever seen since the Second World War.

As per DW-NOMINATE, an empirical measure of ideology over time this is the furthest right the Republican Party has been in history. The Democrats are right around where they were in the 1920's, about 0.25 closer to the center than Republicans are, and in DW-NOMINATE terms 0.25 is HUGE. This chart is from 2015 but I doubt the overall findings are that much different today.

Party_means_liberal_conservative.PNG
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
lol, no. Republicans have continued to radicalize to the right in a way that no developed country has ever seen since the Second World War.

As per DW-NOMINATE, an empirical measure of ideology over time this is the furthest right the Republican Party has been in history. The Democrats are right around where they were in the 1920's, about 0.25 closer to the center than Republicans are, and in DW-NOMINATE terms 0.25 is HUGE. This chart is from 2015 but I doubt the overall findings are that much different today.

Party_means_liberal_conservative.PNG


Oh cute, a graph. I provided clear examples of the left's march further left. You provided nothing. How has the right gone further right? What are your examples of this?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,129
48,196
136
Oh cute, a graph. I provided clear examples of the left's march ever further left. You provided nothing. How has the right gone further right? What are your examples of this?

I provided empirical evidence based on peer reviewed political science research. You know, actual evidence. Remember, I deal in facts while you deal in feelings. If you would like to criticize DW-NOMINATE then by all means lets hear your empirical evaluation.

As for the radicalism of Republicans when presented with a health care bill they didn't like they decided to repeal it and replace it with their own. When they couldn't come up with a viable alternative they settled on attempting to sabotage it so that millions would lose insurance. That's about the most extreme, irresponsible act of legislation I've ever seen in my entire life.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
lol, no. Republicans have continued to radicalize to the right in a way that no developed country has ever seen since the Second World War.

As per DW-NOMINATE, an empirical measure of ideology over time this is the furthest right the Republican Party has been in history. The Democrats are right around where they were in the 1920's, about 0.25 closer to the center than Republicans are, and in DW-NOMINATE terms 0.25 is HUGE. This chart is from 2015 but I doubt the overall findings are that much different today.

Party_means_liberal_conservative.PNG

He's totally post-truth. The GOP has been charging for the far right political horizon since Reagan, looting the Treasury & beating down the middle class at every turn.
 
  • Like
Reactions: edblor and nickqt

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
I provided empirical evidence based on peer reviewed political science research. You know, actual evidence. Remember, I deal in facts while you deal in feelings. If you would like to criticize DW-NOMINATE then by all means lets hear your empirical evaluation.

As for the radicalism of Republicans when presented with a health care bill they didn't like they decided to repeal it and replace it with their own. When they couldn't come up with a viable alternative they settled on attempting to sabotage it so that millions would lose insurance. That's about the most extreme, irresponsible act of legislation I've ever seen in my entire life.

Political science is bullshit. I provided real life tangible examples, the only thing you have shown is putting healthcare closer to the baseline it has existed at for decades is "radicalism of Republicans" (LOL on that by the way). But you don't see the move to make it government provided in the first place as the radicalism, or even a solid push leftwards? For fuck's sake you nincompoop. Which has been the accepted standard? The left looking to push us further left in this area. And college. Did you realize there is a thread just down the page about a 70% tax rate by an elected liberal? We have not swung right, we've swung left of common sense.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
I provided empirical evidence based on peer reviewed political science research. You know, actual evidence. Remember, I deal in facts while you deal in feelings. If you would like to criticize DW-NOMINATE then by all means lets hear your empirical evaluation.

As for the radicalism of Republicans when presented with a health care bill they didn't like they decided to repeal it and replace it with their own. When they couldn't come up with a viable alternative they settled on attempting to sabotage it so that millions would lose insurance. That's about the most extreme, irresponsible act of legislation I've ever seen in my entire life.

There's also looting the Treasury on behalf of the financial elite & burning down the institutions of Democracy. Small matters, really.

And then there's Trump, of course. Right wingers play Hell preventing their right arm from shooting up like Dr Strangelove's at the mention of his name.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,129
48,196
136
Political science is bullshit.

Hahaha, of course this is your reaction. 'Science is bullshit'. Like I said, you reason by feelings. If it makes you feel bad, you find a way to defend yourself from it.

I provided real life tangible examples, the only thing you have shown is putting healthcare closer to the baseline it has existed at for decades is "radicalism of Republicans" (LOL on that by the way).

It did not push it closer to the baseline in any way, it made our private health care system unstable by enabling free riders. That's like saying if you were going skydiving and you went up in the plane with a parachute, by removing the parachute after you've jumped out the door we've returned you 'closer to the baseline' for your life. lol.

It is a perfect sign of the GOPs radicalism that if they can't implement their own health care ideas they will break the health care system we have out of spite. That's when you know one party has gone insane.

But you don't see the move to make it government provided in the first place as the radicalism, or even a solid push leftwards? For fuck's sake you nincompoop. Which has been the accepted standard?

The ACA is a considerably more conservative approach to universal health care than was being considered in the 1990's or even the 1970's. It's a sign of them becoming more MODERATE, not more radical, you fucking idiot.

The left looking to push us further left in this area. And college. Did you realize there is a thread just down the page about a 70% tax rate by an elected liberal? We have not swung right, we've swung left of common sense.

Oh god spare us from the tax rates of the 1950's and 1960's. The Democrats are just pushing tax rates closer to the baseline of when America was most prosperous. ;)
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,129
48,196
136
Oh and who can forget when that 'moderate' GOP threatened to inflict a worldwide financial catastrophe on us unless the Democrats gave in to their domestic policy demands (and threatens to do so again!)

Who can forget the current super moderate president who is arguing that he can declare a transparently fake emergency to take funds Congress did not approve for his pet domestic project because he failed to pass it through legislation.

Who can forget the current super moderate congressional GOP who looked at the president's campaign manager convicted of multiple felonies, the president's national security adviser convicted of multiple felonies, the president's deputy campaign manager admitting to multiple felonies, the president's personal lawyer pleading guilty to multiple felonies and implicating the president in the commission of multiple felonies, only to decide that not only was congressional oversight not necessary, the right thing to do was to further investigate Hillary Clinton's email server.
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
Hahaha, of course this is your reaction. 'Science is bullshit'. Like I said, you reason by feelings. If it makes you feel bad, you find a way to defend yourself from it.



It did not push it closer to the baseline in any way, it made our private health care system unstable by enabling free riders. That's like saying if you were going skydiving and you went up in the plane with a parachute, by removing the parachute after you've jumped out the door we've returned you 'closer to the baseline' for your life. lol.

It is a perfect sign of the GOPs radicalism that if they can't implement their own health care ideas they will break the health care system we have out of spite. That's when you know one party has gone insane.



The ACA is a considerably more conservative approach to universal health care than was being considered in the 1990's or even the 1970's. It's a sign of them becoming more MODERATE, not more radical, you fucking idiot.



Oh god spare us from the tax rates of the 1950's and 1960's. The Democrats are just pushing tax rates closer to the baseline of when America was most prosperous. ;)



I didn't say "science is bullshit" you stupid dishonest cuck. I said political science is bullshit. I'm all aboard when it comes to physical science, but political science is bullshit.

When was the last time we had socialized healthcare, mandated insurance? Never. So the push to do so in recent years is a left turn. This isn't hard to grasp, at least it shouldn't be. You seem to be having a tough time though.

Wow, the ACA is a more conservative approach than radical leftist ideas that were never considered on a serious level. Neato. It is still a push left in the big picture.

I'm not surprised you see a 70% tax rate as a good thing. But then again, America on the whole has edged left due to the radicalism of today's liberals having become their mainstream. Abolish ICE, amirite?
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,129
48,196
136
I didn't say "science is bullshit" you stupid dishonest cuck. I said political science is bullshit. I'm all aboard when it comes to physical science, but political science is bullshit.

I know you think political science is bullshit, that's why I'm laughing at you. You want to reason with feelings so when people provide you with empirical evidence you have to find some way to pretend it doesn't count. I'm sorry it hurts your feelings, but facts don't care about your feelings. Someday you're going to have to accept that.

Also, lol at the 'cuck' insult. The_donald says hi. ;)

When was the last time we had socialized healthcare, mandated insurance? Never. So the push to do so in recent years is a left turn. This isn't hard to grasp, at least it shouldn't be. You seem to be having a tough time though.

Wow, the ACA is a more conservative approach than radical leftist ideas that were never considered on a serious level. Neato. It is still a push left in the big picture.

Never considered on a serious level? Are you stupid? Bill Clinton spent the first year and a half of his presidency trying to push a bill much to the left of the affordable care act.

This is a simple, irrefutable fact. Democrats moderated on health care and no one can honestly deny this. The main issue with the ACA is that by the time it passed Republicans had become so radicalized that even more conservative health care ideas were the next coming of Hitler. This is because as political science shows, the Republican Party has become the most extreme right wing major party in the developed world.

Think about that, the most extreme in the entire developed world. That's how crazy you guys have become.

EDIT: ironically, this is probably the biggest reason why the Republican health care bills failed. The ACA ALREADY IS the conservative friendly way to achieve universal health care. There wasn't anything to the right of it other than a return to the failing insurance markets that everyone hated.

I'm not surprised you see a 70% tax rate as a good thing. But then again, America on the has edged left due to the radicalism of today's liberals having become their mainstream. Abolish ICE, amirite?

I didn't say anything about it being a good thing or a bad thing, simply that it would be a return to the tax baseline that we had in the 1950's and 1960's. Since you previously argued that a 'return to baseline' was a moderate move, this should be moderate to you.

Basic logic. Use logic, not feelings.
 

GettyRoad

Golden Member
Mar 5, 2016
1,171
349
136
Wow. The main job of your head of state is to keep the military happy? Interesting what company that puts the US in.

I really am skeptical about the obsession with 'Russian trolls' or 'Russians' in general. But your comments just seem weird to me. This one seems more appropriate for somewhere like Libya or Pakistan or Burma or somewhere where political power depends on keeping the military on-side.

No, it is not to keep the military happy. It is to be respected by the military. I'm off from work today, it's post-Super Bowl Monday, I have a lot of time on my hands today. I'll answer any question.

You can criticize military leadership's positions, but you don't belittle the sacrifices that U.S. soldiers make. U.S. military service is optional and you should treat them well with good morale and good pay.
 

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
15,730
1,457
126
I didn't say "science is bullshit" you stupid dishonest cuck. I said political science is bullshit. I'm all aboard when it comes to physical science, but political science is bullshit.

When was the last time we had socialized healthcare, mandated insurance? Never. So the push to do so in recent years is a left turn. This isn't hard to grasp, at least it shouldn't be. You seem to be having a tough time though.

Wow, the ACA is a more conservative approach than radical leftist ideas that were never considered on a serious level. Neato. It is still a push left in the big picture.

I'm not surprised you see a 70% tax rate as a good thing. But then again, America on the whole has edged left due to the radicalism of today's liberals having become their mainstream. Abolish ICE, amirite?
It's a marginal tax-rate. It doesn't mean that the government is taking 70% of their income; it means that above a certain income level, those particular dollars are taxed at 70%.

Get an introductory calculus textbook.
 
  • Like
Reactions: edblor

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,188
14,096
136
Yes, its the lefts fault for forcing the gop into collusion, conspiracy and treason. Makes sense.

You notice the examples you give are not really what you'd call policy stances. The OP's article was discussing a Pew survey which concludes that dems were becoming more "extreme' because they have moved leftward on several issues like gay marriage and immigration. But your examples do go directly to the heart of what "extremism" means. The problem is the Pew study is based on too limited a data set to determine "extremism." Because extremism isn't generally a function of where one stands on issues.

Republicans just elected a totally unqualified fool with strongly authoritarian tendencies to office in part just to piss off liberals. Since then, they have shown no regard for the truth, and are seemingly willing to cut Trump a pass even on something as egregious as treason. They are in their own alternative reality bubble. That is extremism. Where you've moved on issues like whether the government should help the poor? Not so much.

It would help to have a viable working definition of "extremism" before deciding what method to use to measure it.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,188
14,096
136
Oh and who can forget when that 'moderate' GOP threatened to inflict a worldwide financial catastrophe on us unless the Democrats gave in to their domestic policy demands (and threatens to do so again!)

Who can forget the current super moderate president who is arguing that he can declare a transparently fake emergency to take funds Congress did not approve for his pet domestic project because he failed to pass it through legislation.

Who can forget the current super moderate congressional GOP who looked at the president's campaign manager convicted of multiple felonies, the president's national security adviser convicted of multiple felonies, the president's deputy campaign manager admitting to multiple felonies, the president's personal lawyer pleading guilty to multiple felonies and implicating the president in the commission of multiple felonies, only to decide that not only was congressional oversight not necessary, the right thing to do was to further investigate Hillary Clinton's email server.

As per my comment above, what you're describing here is extremism. That Pew survey isn't really measuring extremism. Dems have moved further leftward on issues. They haven't become more "extreme" - at least not to anywhere near the extent of the repubs.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,129
48,196
136
As per my comment above, what you're describing here is extremism. That Pew survey isn't really measuring extremism. Dems have moved further leftward on issues. They haven't become more "extreme" - at least not to anywhere near the extent of the repubs.

I agree that there is policy extremism and governing extremism. I would argue that the GOP qualifies for both by any definition you would choose.

The main issue here though would be that the GOP no longer has a policy agenda outside of cutting taxes and regulatory burdens for rich people. (I’m being totally serious, look at the last two years) So have they become more extreme in a policy sense? Well, in the very few policies they have, yes. That’s kind of obscured a bit by the fact that other than that they just don’t really have any ideas or interest.

The methods by which they pursue these goals are also extreme in that they have eschewed all respect for governing norms and frankly, the basic functions of the government that they are supposed to be protecting. Under Obama they repeatedly tried to cause governance or international financial calamities in order to get what they wanted. Now that they won the presidency they enable gross incompetence, corruption, and what frankly appears to be criminal activity in the executive branch.

What definition doesn’t that cover?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,446
6,095
126
I agree that there is policy extremism and governing extremism. I would argue that the GOP qualifies for both by any definition you would choose.

The main issue here though would be that the GOP no longer has a policy agenda outside of cutting taxes and regulatory burdens for rich people. (I’m being totally serious, look at the last two years) So have they become more extreme in a policy sense? Well, in the very few policies they have, yes. That’s kind of obscured a bit by the fact that other than that they just don’t really have any ideas or interest.

The methods by which they pursue these goals are also extreme in that they have eschewed all respect for governing norms and frankly, the basic functions of the government that they are supposed to be protecting. Under Obama they repeatedly tried to cause governance or international financial calamities in order to get what they wanted. Now that they won the presidency they enable gross incompetence, corruption, and what frankly appears to be criminal activity in the executive branch.

What definition doesn’t that cover?
To me it represents the symptomatic manifestation of a life lived devoid of spirituality, the sense that the meaning of life is derived from the joy of loving others as one would wish for oneself. It's emotional death, a real death of the real self.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
What policy areas do you think show the Democrats don’t represent the middle class, specifically?

By becoming republican lite while claiming to be for the middle class and liberal, the recent brouhaha in Seattle were a liberal democrat Jeff Bezo's Amazon crushed the democrat homeless bill is just one of many examples.

But if you want more specifics maybe this “right wing” former labor secretary can explain it better for you.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/10/democrats-working-class-americans-us-election
Democrats once represented the working class. Not any more

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama helped shift power away from the people towards corporations. It was this that created an opening for Donald Trump

What has happened in America should not be seen as a victory for hatefulness over decency. It is more accurately understood as a repudiation of the American power structure.


At the core of that structure are the political leaders of both parties, their political operatives, and fundraisers; the major media, centered in New York and Washington DC; the country’s biggest corporations, their top executives, and Washington lobbyists and trade associations; the biggest Wall Street banks, their top officers, traders, hedge-fund and private-equity managers, and their lackeys in Washington; and the wealthy individuals who invest directly in politics.


At the start of the 2016 election cycle, this power structure proclaimed Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush shoo-ins for the nominations of the Democratic and Republican parties. After all, both of these individuals had deep bases of funders, well-established networks of political insiders, experienced political advisers and all the political name recognition any candidate could possibly want.






But a funny thing happened on the way to the White House. The presidency was won by Donald Trump, who made his fortune marketing office towers and casinos, and, more recently, starring in a popular reality-television program, and who has never held elective office or had anything to do with the Republican party. Hillary Clinton narrowly won the popular vote, but not enough of the states and their electors secure a victory.




Hillary Clinton’s defeat is all the more remarkable in that her campaign vastly outspent the Trump campaign on television and radio advertisements, and get-out-the-vote efforts. Moreover, her campaign had the support in the general election not of only the kingpins of the Democratic party but also many leading Republicans, including most of the politically active denizens of Wall Street and the top executives of America’s largest corporations, and even former Republican president George HW Bush. Her campaign team was run by seasoned professionals who knew the ropes. She had the visible and forceful backing of Barack Obama, whose popularity has soared in recent months, and his popular wife. And, of course, she had her husband.


Trump, by contrast, was shunned by the power structure. Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential candidate in 2012, actively worked against Trump’s nomination. Many senior Republicans refused to endorse him, or even give him their support. The Republican National Committee did not raise money for Trump to the extent it had for other Republican candidates for president.


What happened?


There had been hints of the political earthquake to come. Trump had won the Republican primaries, after all. More tellingly, Clinton had been challenged in the Democratic primaries by the unlikeliest of candidates – a 74-year-old Jewish senator from Vermont who described himself as a democratic socialist and who was not even a Democrat. Bernie Sanders went on to win 22 states and 47% of the vote in those primaries. Sanders’ major theme was that the country’s political and economic system was rigged in favor of big corporations, Wall Street and the very wealthy.



The power structure of America wrote off Sanders as an aberration, and, until recently, didn’t take Trump seriously. A respected political insider recently told me most Americans were largely content with the status quo. “The economy is in good shape,” he said. “Most Americans are better off than they’ve been in years.”


Recent economic indicators may be up, but those indicators don’t reflect the insecurity most Americans continue to feel, nor the seeming arbitrariness and unfairness they experience. Nor do the major indicators show the linkages many Americans see between wealth and power, stagnant or declining real wages, soaring CEO pay, and the undermining of democracy by big money.


Median family income is lower now than it was 16 years ago, adjusted for inflation. Workers without college degrees – the old working class – have fallen furthest. Most economic gains, meanwhile, have gone to top. These gains have translated into political power to elicit bank bailouts, corporate subsidies, special tax loopholes, favorable trade deals and increasing market power without interference by anti-monopoly enforcement – all of which have further reduced wages and pulled up profits.

Wealth, power and crony capitalism fit together. Americans know a takeover has occurred, and they blame the establishment for it.


The Democratic party once represented the working class. But over the last three decades the party has been taken over by Washington-based fundraisers, bundlers, analysts, and pollsters who have focused instead on raising campaign money from corporate and Wall Street executives and getting votes from upper middle-class households in “swing” suburbs.


Democrats have occupied the White House for 16 of the last 24 years, and for four of those years had control of both houses of Congress. But in that time they failed to reverse the decline in working-class wages and economic security. Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama ardently pushed for free trade agreements without providing millions of blue-collar workers who thereby lost their jobs means of getting new ones that paid at least as well.


They stood by as corporations hammered trade unions, the backbone of the white working class – failing to reform labor laws to impose meaningful penalties on companies that violate them, or help workers form unions with simple up-or-down votes. Partly as a result, union membership sank from 22% of all workers when Bill Clinton was elected president to less than 12% today, and the working class lost bargaining leverage to get a share of the economy’s gains.


Bill Clinton and Obama also allowed antitrust enforcement to ossify – with the result that large corporations have grown far larger, and major industries more concentrated. The unsurprising result of this combination – more trade, declining unionization and more industry concentration – has been to shift political and economic power to big corporations and the wealthy, and to shaft the working class. This created an opening for Donald Trump’s authoritarian demagoguery, and his presidency.


Now Americans have rebelled by supporting someone who wants to fortify America against foreigners as well as foreign-made goods. The power structure understandably fears that Trump’s isolationism will stymie economic growth. But most Americans couldn’t care less about growth because for years they have received few of its benefits, while suffering most of its burdens in the forms of lost jobs and lower wages.



The power structure is shocked by the outcome of the 2016 election because it has cut itself off from the lives of most Americans. Perhaps it also doesn’t wish to understand, because that would mean acknowledging its role in enabling the presidency of Donald Trump.
 

brandonbull

Diamond Member
May 3, 2005
6,330
1,203
126
It is becoming increasingly clear: Republican - Party of the Oligarchs; Democrat - Party of the People

Up to 2016, the Democrats were also a Party of the Oligarchs, just somewhat more mildly. The Republican Party began to polarize decades ago.

Hate to break it to you, but the Democrats overwhelming represent the richest Congressional districts.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,129
48,196
136
By becoming republican lite while claiming to be for the middle class and liberal, the recent brouhaha in Seattle were a liberal democrat Jeff Bezo's Amazon crushed the democrat homeless bill is just one of many examples.

So to be clear, Democrats don’t support the middle class because Democrats put forth a bill to help the homeless by taxing Amazon specifically and the CEO of Amazon opposed it?

Stop and think if that makes any sense.

But if you want more specifics maybe this “right wing” former labor secretary can explain it better for you.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/10/democrats-working-class-americans-us-election
Democrats once represented the working class. Not any more

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama helped shift power away from the people towards corporations. It was this that created an opening for Donald Trump


Why on earth would Robert Reich be considered right wing?

While I agree with Reich’s overall policy goals he kind of gives up the game by admitting the Democrats have had little chance to enact the policies he criticizes them for not enacting. This is a frequent criticism I see, that basically being ‘why didn’t Democrat’s fix everything in the ~14 months they had unified control of government?’

The power structure is shocked by the outcome of the 2016 election because it has cut itself off from the lives of most Americans. Perhaps it also doesn’t wish to understand, because that would mean acknowledging its role in enabling the presidency of Donald Trump.

I find it strange that people keep painting the 2016 outcome as one Americans wanted. It wasn’t. Despite voter apathy and voter suppression Trump lost by millions of votes. If you take into account the actual preferences of all people eligible to vote he would have lost in a landslide.

We should be shocked at the antidemocratic outcomes of our system instead of each individual deciding that the real cause of Trump is America not adopting whatever policies it is they prefer.
 

brandonbull

Diamond Member
May 3, 2005
6,330
1,203
126
Yes, its the lefts fault for forcing the gop into collusion, conspiracy and treason. Makes sense.

That's funny coming from the Russian dossier party. The Dems conspired and colluded with the Russians in an effort to prove that Trump was the one conspiring and colluding. Using typical Dimocrat logic, Gov. Northam denied being in blackface for a photo because he always remembers when he uses blackface and that one he doesn't remember.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cytg111

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,129
48,196
136
That's funny coming from the Russian dossier party. The Dems conspired and colluded with the Russians in an effort to prove that Trump was the one conspiring and colluding. Using typical Dimocrat logic, Gov. Northam denied being in blackface for a photo because he always remembers when he uses blackface and that one he doesn't remember.

It’s amazing after all this time you’re still claiming not to know why paying fair market price for information from foreigners is not the same thing as conspiring to receive criminally obtained data from a hostile foreign government’s intelligence services.

Can you explain your confusion? After all this is pretty blindingly simple stuff.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,188
14,096
136
I agree that there is policy extremism and governing extremism. I would argue that the GOP qualifies for both by any definition you would choose.

The main issue here though would be that the GOP no longer has a policy agenda outside of cutting taxes and regulatory burdens for rich people. (I’m being totally serious, look at the last two years) So have they become more extreme in a policy sense? Well, in the very few policies they have, yes. That’s kind of obscured a bit by the fact that other than that they just don’t really have any ideas or interest.

The methods by which they pursue these goals are also extreme in that they have eschewed all respect for governing norms and frankly, the basic functions of the government that they are supposed to be protecting. Under Obama they repeatedly tried to cause governance or international financial calamities in order to get what they wanted. Now that they won the presidency they enable gross incompetence, corruption, and what frankly appears to be criminal activity in the executive branch.

What definition doesn’t that cover?

Right, the two forms of extremism are distinct. I've known people who were center right in their policy positions but extremely partisan nonetheless. I've also known some who were quite far right or left on policy but didn't have hateful attitudes toward the other party.

I agree with what you say above as it relates to the behavior of the current sitting GOP. However, OP's article was based on a Pew survey which measured attitudes among the general population. Among the general population of conservatives, I see extremism especially in their refusal to accept inconvenient facts about their leaders, particularly Trump. And their desire to blame democrats for every problem, including those caused by the people they support. And their refusal to accept any policy proposal from dems, no matter how moderate. Their tribalism makes them extreme.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
That's funny coming from the Russian dossier party. The Dems conspired and colluded with the Russians in an effort to prove that Trump was the one conspiring and colluding. Using typical Dimocrat logic, Gov. Northam denied being in blackface for a photo because he always remembers when he uses blackface and that one he doesn't remember.

You're a chump for conspiracy theories, huh? When 17 intelligence agencies, Twitter, Facebook & private cyber security firms all agree that the Russians meddled in the election on behalf of Trump you just pretend that never happened because Steele dossier.
 

brandonbull

Diamond Member
May 3, 2005
6,330
1,203
126
It’s amazing after all this time you’re still claiming not to know why paying fair market price for information from foreigners is not the same thing as conspiring to receive criminally obtained data from a hostile foreign government’s intelligence services.

Can you explain your confusion? After all this is pretty blindingly simple stuff.

When the "foreigners" are people connected to Putin, it is conspiring with a hostile foreign government. My confusion is yours and other Liberals refusal to admit that the dossier was funded by Clinton and the DNC and contains information from Russian officials.