First party to the middle wins...

Nole Lou

HR Heisman
Apr 5, 2002
5,222
11,045
113
Point 2:

Abortion should be legal without restriction in the first trimester, legal in certain circumstances in the second trimester, and legal only in the third trimester to save the life of the mother.

This was the law of the land until the conservative Supreme Court overturned it. Now, it is current Republican legislators pushing for a national abortion ban: https://apnews.com/article/2022-mid...court-health-7ea4f8fa597c97042503d856a082ef94

And current Republican legislators who do not support third trimester abortion to save the life of the mother or in case of rape and incest:


So again, Democrats are in the "middle" position, Republicans on the fringe.

Point 3?

Wait, which Democrats have said abortion should have some restrictions after the first trimester, and illegal in the third trimester?

Will absolutely not give you this one.
 

Nole Lou

HR Heisman
Apr 5, 2002
5,222
11,045
113
America is a nation of immigrants and should welcome a substantial number of immigrants who are seeking to build a better life in America, but we should not allow millions of people to cross the border illegally.

This is probably one where some Democrats are to the left (although I'd argue this isn't really a left/right issue) of the mainstream, as many do support a fairly lax criteria for asylum seekers and refugees. However, I believe it is a distortion and a lie to claim that a majority or even a large minority of Democrats are in favor of NO border control --- that is a lie made up for political gain.

I think this one is a wash. Both parties are farther to the fringe than the middle.

Absolutely. Abolish ICE rhetoric, hoax about border guards whipping migrants, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Banditking
Criminals, especially repeat and violent criminals, should be dealt with strictly by the justice system, and police should actively keep our streets safe. But police and law enforcement who abuse their power should face strong consequences, including prosecution when necessary.

I am not aware of any existing Democrat politicians calling for violent criminals to not be dealt with strictly or asking for police to not keep our streets safe. In fact, despite the asinine decision to call a reform movement a stupid, stupid name like "defund the police" -- the INTENT of the reform is to make the streets safer by helping police not have to be armed social workers, and concentrate on actual crime prevention.

As for the abuse of power by law enforcement, it is primarily Republicans behind efforts to shield cops from consequences:


Again, it's the Republicans who are more radical.
 
  • Like
Reactions: littlez
Americans have the right to buy and own guns mostly unencumbered, but certain assault rifles and accessories should not be easily legal. Current gun laws should be enforced.

Show me a single instance of a Democrat opposed to Americans having the right to buy a gun curtailed.

I can show you MANY Republicans who do not want to have assault rifle bans or current gun laws enforced:


Again, GOP radicals, Democrats middle-of-the-road.
 
  • Like
Reactions: littlez

Jerome Silberman

HR Legend
Oct 30, 2009
12,931
18,020
113
Sure. But that's because we let the political parties and political media (which is virtually all media) set the terms. What the "middle" looks like is this:

Gay marriage is fine and should be legal, but we shouldn't be discussing/teaching sexual preference and sexual identity with elementary school kids.

Abortion should be legal without restriction in the first trimester, legal in certain circumstances in the second trimester, and legal only in the third trimester to save the life of the mother.

America is a nation of immigrants and should welcome a substantial number of immigrants who are seeking to build a better life in America, but we should not allow millions of people to cross the border illegally.

Criminals, especially repeat and violent criminals, should be dealt with strictly by the justice system, and police should actively keep our streets safe. But police and law enforcement who abuse their power should face strong consequences, including prosecution when necessary.

Americans have the right to buy and own guns mostly unencumbered, but certain assault rifles and accessories should not be easily legal. Current gun laws should be enforced.

We need to aggressively bring down the cost of college, but we should not be forgiving student loans for masters degrees for middle and upper class people.

Schools should teach the horrors of slavery and honor the civil rights movement, and teach historical and current examples of racism. But America is not a racist country, founded on and dedicated to White Supremacy, and all white people are not inherently racist.

I mean, all those those statements would garner at least 70% approval from the general public. On the face of it, they are all relatively common sense for anyone who is not deeply engaged with politics. That's what "moving to the middle" would look like, along with massively toning down the rhetoric, outright lies and the dehumanizing of the other side.

It only SEEMS impossible because of the lines our parties have set, whether that be total fealty to legal AR-15s or unregulated abortion through 9 months.

That reads like a list of thing Democrats want and Republicans are explicitly fighting against.
 

Banditking

HR MVP
Apr 25, 2002
1,967
1,089
113
Americans have the right to buy and own guns mostly unencumbered, but certain assault rifles and accessories should not be easily legal. Current gun laws should be enforced.

Show me a single instance of a Democrat opposed to Americans having the right to buy a gun curtailed.

I can show you MANY Republicans who do not want to have assault rifle bans or current gun laws enforced:


Again, GOP radicals, Democrats middle-of-the-road.
What is an assault rifle? What is the difference between a semi automatic ar 15 (Armalite, not assault rifle) and a semi automatic pistol or another form factor of semi automatic rifle?
 

Nole Lou

HR Heisman
Apr 5, 2002
5,222
11,045
113
Criminals, especially repeat and violent criminals, should be dealt with strictly by the justice system, and police should actively keep our streets safe. But police and law enforcement who abuse their power should face strong consequences, including prosecution when necessary.

I am not aware of any existing Democrat politicians calling for violent criminals to not be dealt with strictly or asking for police to not keep our streets safe. In fact, despite the asinine decision to call a reform movement a stupid, stupid name like "defund the police" -- the INTENT of the reform is to make the streets safer by helping police not have to be armed social workers, and concentrate on actual crime prevention.

As for the abuse of power by law enforcement, it is primarily Republicans behind efforts to shield cops from consequences:


Again, it's the Republicans who are more radical.

Hey...the Democrats chose Defund the Police and have had a terrible time disassociating itself from it.

It's progressive DAs that have expanded no-cash bail and decreased prosecutions of any number of crimes.

Fetterman himself:

Harsanyi pointed out that Fetterman was the sole vote on the board in August 2021 to free Alexis Rodriguez, who is serving a life sentence for fatally shooting Sean Daily, the 17-year-old son of a Philadelphia police officer, in 1989.

Rodriguez, then 19, was one of five sentenced to life in prison for beating Daily, a high school junior, with a baseball bat and then shooting him in a racially motivated attack.

Rodriguez was denied clemency by a 3-1 vote.

An analysis of Fetterman’s time on the board by the Washington Free Beacon found that he voted to free at least 13 people convicted of first-degree murder.


https://nypost.com/2022/10/19/fetterman-touts-shawshank-redemption-pardon-policy/

I'm not arguing whether these things are good policy or not. But they are just not mainstream positions.

I would strongly argue that the Democrats pivoting as hard as possible toward funding the police, Democratic voters recalling progressive D.A.s and NYC electing Adams mayor are a strong example of Democrats recognizing they are way outside on this one, and pulling back toward the middle. They got way out over their skis on this one and know it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Banditking

Nole Lou

HR Heisman
Apr 5, 2002
5,222
11,045
113
Americans have the right to buy and own guns mostly unencumbered, but certain assault rifles and accessories should not be easily legal. Current gun laws should be enforced.

Show me a single instance of a Democrat opposed to Americans having the right to buy a gun curtailed.

I can show you MANY Republicans who do not want to have assault rifle bans or current gun laws enforced:


Again, GOP radicals, Democrats middle-of-the-road.

Absolutely I think Republicans are further out on this one.
 

Banditking

HR MVP
Apr 25, 2002
1,967
1,089
113
Hey...the Democrats chose Defund the Police and have had a terrible time disassociating itself from it.

It's progressive DAs that have expanded no-cash bail and decreased prosecutions of any number of crimes.

Fetterman himself:

Harsanyi pointed out that Fetterman was the sole vote on the board in August 2021 to free Alexis Rodriguez, who is serving a life sentence for fatally shooting Sean Daily, the 17-year-old son of a Philadelphia police officer, in 1989.

Rodriguez, then 19, was one of five sentenced to life in prison for beating Daily, a high school junior, with a baseball bat and then shooting him in a racially motivated attack.

Rodriguez was denied clemency by a 3-1 vote.

An analysis of Fetterman’s time on the board by the Washington Free Beacon found that he voted to free at least 13 people convicted of first-degree murder.


https://nypost.com/2022/10/19/fetterman-touts-shawshank-redemption-pardon-policy/

I'm not arguing whether these things are good policy or not. But they are just not mainstream positions.

I would strongly argue that the Democrats pivoting as hard as possible toward funding the police, Democratic voters recalling progressive D.A.s and NYC electing Adams mayor are a strong example of Democrats recognizing they are way outside on this one, and pulling back toward the middle. They got way out over their skis on this one and know it.
Yep. But it also telegraphs what they want to do. The Goerge floyd riots and the Dems response and fueling of the protest and the narrative of anti cop hate were ridiculous. I’ve had a couple of dem friends tell me they will not vote locally for any dem after the summer. (Big city denizens.)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: littlez

srams21

HR Legend
Gold Member
May 23, 2004
24,178
35,742
113
But I can point to plenty of Republicans who have said that. Should be all, but there are plenty.
What percentage is plenty? I've only seen a few Rs stand up and say that. I'd say 70% of the party still thinks it was stolen.
 

onlyTheObvious

HR Heisman
Jan 3, 2021
7,244
8,480
113
I would support either party fully if they actually paid for what they spend.

Via cutting other things or tax increases.

both just talk about the paying portion but fully do the spending.

seems to me if things had to be paid for we would see some moderation and compromise.
 

tarheelbybirth

HR King
Apr 17, 2003
68,825
53,911
113
What was included in the infrastructure bill? A lot of it wasn’t.
You said Trump was "far left" simply for talking about "Infrastructure Week". There was never even a bill proposed. You are Pavlovian in your response to wing nut dog whistles. Loon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: littlez

ThorneStockton

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2009
25,124
36,326
113
Absolutely. Abolish ICE rhetoric, hoax about border guards whipping migrants, etc.

This is a pretty good example of why the survey results are what they were. Even you, someone who is grounded in reality, isn't a total MAGA hack, can summarize the Democrats position on the broad topic of immigration as: "Abolish ICE rhetoric, hoax about border guards whipping migrants, etc."

If I had your understanding of the Democrat's position on immigration I would think they were extreme too!


Would a reasonable person ever sum up the reality like that? Of course not. Which is why the whole idea that if a party went to the "middle" all of the sudden people would start accurately or reasonably assessing them is silly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: torbee

Banditking

HR MVP
Apr 25, 2002
1,967
1,089
113
You said Trump was "far left" simply for talking about "Infrastructure Week". There was never even a bill proposed. You are Pavlovian in your response to wing nut dog whistles. Loon.

Take a look at our debt clock accumulation. Practically all new spending bills that aren’t servicing prior obligations are bad ideas.
 

tarheelbybirth

HR King
Apr 17, 2003
68,825
53,911
113

Take a look at our debt clock accumulation. Practically all new spending bills that aren’t servicing prior obligations are bad ideas.
LOL...so...servicing infrastructure that has already been built is "far left", doesn't represent a "prior obligation", and is a poor spending choice. Far better to let it all fall apart. We get it. You're a f'n loon. You don't need to double down on stupid, too.
 

Nole Lou

HR Heisman
Apr 5, 2002
5,222
11,045
113
This is a pretty good example of why the survey results are what they were. Even you, someone who is grounded in reality, isn't a total MAGA hack, can summarize the Democrats position on the broad topic of immigration as: "Abolish ICE rhetoric, hoax about border guards whipping migrants, etc."

If I had your understanding of the Democrat's position on immigration I would think they were extreme too!


Would a reasonable person ever sum up the reality like that? Of course not. Which is why the whole idea that if a party went to the "middle" all of the sudden people would start accurately or reasonably assessing them is silly.

The point is not what I think. I have a more liberal immigration position than the Republican party by far.

But the Democrats have a huge problem on immigration messaging. They've reversed Trump-era policies and don't call the massive influx over our borders a crisis. They really don't say anything at all about it. Regular people just aren't nearly as cool with what's happening there. As you can see, since several busloads to NYC got Biden to reverse policy there.

And if Republicans have to wear Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Democrats have to own their Abolish ICE wing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Banditking

Banditking

HR MVP
Apr 25, 2002
1,967
1,089
113
LOL...so...servicing infrastructure that has already been built is "far left", doesn't represent a "prior obligation", and is a poor spending choice. Far better to let it all fall apart. We get it. You're a f'n loon. You don't need to double down on stupid, too.
Not what I said. These bills all come with major pork. But, at your own home, maybe you don’t upgrade the siding if you owe 20k on your credit card?
 

ThorneStockton

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2009
25,124
36,326
113
The point is not what I think. I have a more liberal immigration position than the Republican party by far.

But the Democrats have a huge problem on immigration messaging. They've reversed Trump-era policies and don't call the massive influx over our borders a crisis. They really don't say anything at all about it. Regular people just aren't nearly as cool with what's happening there. As you can see, since several busloads to NYC got Biden to reverse policy there.

And if Republicans have to wear Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Democrats have to own their Abolish ICE wing.

The point is you (or whoever) have a bizarre interpretation of the Democrats current position on immigration (and likely every other topic). Given that, if the Democrats changed their position on immigration (or any other topic) why in the world would anyone expect you (or whoever) to suddenly obtain a reasonable grasp of the new position?

The Democrats would still be defined by Abolish ICE and whipping migrants hoax in the eyes of the wingnuts, regardless if it reflects reality.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that Republicans have to wear Marjorie Taylor Greene like she's a burden. She's one of the more popular speakers on tour and is likely to wind up in a leadership position.
 
  • Like
Reactions: torbee

ThorneStockton

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2009
25,124
36,326
113
Why do you think it’s bizarre but you think mtg represents the current gop well? You can’t see that’s basically fundamental attribution error writ large? Do the dem crazies have committee assignments? Yes.

you had major metropolitan areas direct funds away from police after floyd. Part of the reason those large metropolitan areas got crushed in riots is because you had dem leaders in charge that allowed the looting. That was part of the controversy w The NY Times editor and Tom cotton’s opinion piece. That was only even on the discussion block because of the complete failure of local dem city management to curtail looting and violence. You also had national Dems inflaming these issues. See Kenosha and the furor over j Blake. See c kapernick support. You even had remorse seeking relative to Biden’s support of Clinton’s crime bill. I think it’s fairly easy to understand why non diehard Dems think the Dems are very weak on crime. I think maybe you are a low information voter.

Not only bizarre, but not very comprehensive.

1. "Abolish ICE rhetoric" - Hard to say what this actually means. What is the rhetoric? Who is utilizing it? What are the actual intentions/policies? How widely held are they among the party? Those are questions I would want to assess before coming to a conclusion.
2. "hoax about border guards whipping migrants" - If this is what I remember, it was a single event, where some politicians/media people were duped or made incorrect conclusions about a video or picture and tried to capitalize on them politically. Was in the news for like a couple of days? Absolutely bizarre to use this as one of the two presented examples of Democrats on immigration.
3. "etc." - Not a lot to go on.

As for MTG. I don't think she represents all of the GOP well. Unfortunately she's dead on for a significant portion of it, including the way it's been moving the last several years. She's gone from conspiracy quack/"cancer" on the party to mainstream GOP without changing much of herself at all.

I think this GOP congressman summed it up well: “The headline tonight,” warned the South Carolina freshman Nancy Mace, “is that we tried to kick out Liz Cheney, and we gave a standing ovation to Marjorie Taylor Greene.”

As for your last paragraph. An excellent reminder that you're an absolute loon. One paragraph with a bunch of the hits: Floyd, Kaepernick, Clinton. I am shocked that there is no mention of Soros!

There is no doubt I am low information compared to you "doing your own research", what's your high information say about the next pedo pizza parlor?
 

tarheelbybirth

HR King
Apr 17, 2003
68,825
53,911
113
And if Republicans have to wear Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Democrats have to own their Abolish ICE wing.
Bullshit. Greene is in line for a LEADERSHIP position if the GOP takes the House. Name a single member of the Democratic party in a leadership position who says we need to abolish ICE.

Just out of curiosity, what exactly do you think abolishing ICE means? Are you seriously thinking it means no border security?
 

Colonoscopy

HR All-American
Silver Member
Feb 20, 2022
4,451
5,977
113
50
Too bad neither are showing the slightest inclination in that direction. Massive self-own by both parties.

Must read here:

Overcoming the Democratic Party brand

Cliff notes...no matter how much the Democrats insist on this board that the Democrats are totally mainstream, they aren't convincing the public. Republicans are DEFINITELY considered extreme...but the Democrats equally so. And in fact since most people shade themselves center-right, they rate themselves further from the Democrats than the Republicans.

(Here's where we get a string of progressives insisting that somehow everyone is merely FOOLED into thinking the Democrats are extreme, despite progressives having captured every university, every major media outlet outside of Fox News, etc)

Which party blinks first? Do either?

I go back and forth on that. Sometimes I think the Democrats could shift so much damn easier, they will be the ones. I already saw it in my lifetime with Bill Clinton...the game plan is right there. They don't have a particular individual to overcome like the Republicans have.

On the flip side, maybe that makes it more difficult? The Democrats have been hijacked by more of a set of ideas than a person that they can theoretically just move beyond. They've already turned over their newsrooms, universities, foundations, campaign apparatus, etc to the shrill woke true believers, is that actually harder to dismantle than the Republicans band of idiots that have abandoned the vast majority of their principles?

My gut feeling is still that Democrats can still make the move center a little more smoothly should they choose to, because they don't actually have a single individual that can cause chaos. They just need the right person...but I'm not sure who that is.
I don't know that's so much the center, per se. But rather focusing moreso on issues that non-college educated person is going to care about.

Get back to them as your focal point.
 

Banditking

HR MVP
Apr 25, 2002
1,967
1,089
113
Not only bizarre, but not very comprehensive.

1. "Abolish ICE rhetoric" - Hard to say what this actually means. What is the rhetoric? Who is utilizing it? What are the actual intentions/policies? How widely held are they among the party? Those are questions I would want to assess before coming to a conclusion.
2. "hoax about border guards whipping migrants" - If this is what I remember, it was a single event, where some politicians/media people were duped or made incorrect conclusions about a video or picture and tried to capitalize on them politically. Was in the news for like a couple of days? Absolutely bizarre to use this as one of the two presented examples of Democrats on immigration.
3. "etc." - Not a lot to go on.

As for MTG. I don't think she represents all of the GOP well. Unfortunately she's dead on for a significant portion of it, including the way it's been moving the last several years. She's gone from conspiracy quack/"cancer" on the party to mainstream GOP without changing much of herself at all.

I think this GOP congressman summed it up well: “The headline tonight,” warned the South Carolina freshman Nancy Mace, “is that we tried to kick out Liz Cheney, and we gave a standing ovation to Marjorie Taylor Greene.”

As for your last paragraph. An excellent reminder that you're an absolute loon. One paragraph with a bunch of the hits: Floyd, Kaepernick, Clinton. I am shocked that there is no mention of Soros!

There is no doubt I am low information compared to you "doing your own research", what's your high information say about the next pedo pizza parlor?
You struggle with logic. But, I see you there trying to build threads. I’m not a qanon, maga, soros around every corner conspiracy theorist. How do you feel about the Koch brothers?
 

ThorneStockton

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2009
25,124
36,326
113
You struggle with logic. But, I see you there trying to build threads. I’m not a qanon, maga, soros around every corner conspiracy theorist. How do you feel about the Koch brothers?

I don't feel much about the Koch brothers. Part of me wishes they were more effective with their political spending within the GOP. I doubt this path towards Trump/MAGA/Qanon/conspiracies for the GOP is something they embraced. Although, I'll guess they're still on board, because the Democrats will always be worse.

You struggle with self reflection.
 
  • Like
Reactions: torbee

West Dundee Hawkeye

HR All-American
Gold Member
Sep 28, 2003
2,854
1,409
113
What's the middle that the dems have to move towards? Burning some books? Ok with bigotry against some people? Only half of women are treated like property? Down to 1-2 schools shootings per month? No limit on guns, but coupons on funerals?
How about:

1. Having a border policy to secure the border?

2. How about funding more money for the police?

3. How about balancing the budget?

4. Having a policy to increase energy production?

When these are brought up to Dems, they look at you like they don't understand English.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Banditking

West Dundee Hawkeye

HR All-American
Gold Member
Sep 28, 2003
2,854
1,409
113
LOL...how old are you? Clinton was so "totally mainstream" and "centrist" that the GOP took 54 House and 9 U.S. Senate seats in 94 and flipped both to the GOP for the first time in over forty years. They held both throughout Clinton's presidency. Now tell me again how the electorate hasn't been fooled.
I would argue that Clinton was a successful Pres. and has been the best President since Ike.
 

BelemNole

HR Legend
Mar 29, 2002
34,026
71,559
113
How about:

1. Having a border policy to secure the border?

2. How about funding more money for the police?

3. How about balancing the budget?

4. Having a policy to increase energy production?

When these are brought up to Dems, they look at you like they don't understand English.

1. Border apprehensions are at an all-time high. How would that happen if the dems weren't securing the border? And why to reps only worry about the southern border? How come you all never want to build a wall along the canadian border?
2. Why would the federal govt fund the police?
3. Dems traditionally have more balanced budgets than reps. Look it up.
4. Energy or fossil fuels? Because dems are all about increasing energy production - reps just don't like how they're doing it because their donors are all fossil fuel related.
Anything else? I can try another language if it's easier.
 

West Dundee Hawkeye

HR All-American
Gold Member
Sep 28, 2003
2,854
1,409
113
1. Border apprehensions are at an all-time high. How would that happen if the dems weren't securing the border? And why to reps only worry about the southern border? How come you all never want to build a wall along the canadian border?
2. Why would the federal govt fund the police?
3. Dems traditionally have more balanced budgets than reps. Look it up.
4. Energy or fossil fuels? Because dems are all about increasing energy production - reps just don't like how they're doing it because their donors are all fossil fuel related.
Anything else? I can try another language if it's easier.
You are living in the Far Left dream world where compromise is a dirty word. None of your answers are serious.
 

BelemNole

HR Legend
Mar 29, 2002
34,026
71,559
113
You are living in the Far Left dream world where compromise is a dirty word. None of your answers are serious.
Or maybe you just don't like answers that don't align with your beliefs.

1*pqIXolEpzpTNktAgIclA-A.png
 

West Dundee Hawkeye

HR All-American
Gold Member
Sep 28, 2003
2,854
1,409
113
Or maybe you just don't like answers that don't align with your beliefs.

1*pqIXolEpzpTNktAgIclA-A.png
In the first month of Biden's Presidency, 10 GOP Senators proposed spending $650 Billion on Covid. Ron Klain said no. The Bill ended up being $1.9 Trillion.

The Build Back Better Bill was initially $3 Trillion and actually Bernie proposed more than that but said he could come down to $3 Trillion. Thank God for Joe Manchin as he said that was too much. Most of the Dems were upset with Manchin. Finally it came in at $500 Billion.

I am a massive fan of both Truman and Clinton as they each balanced the budget 3 times. The only GOP Pres to do that was Ike.

Any attempt to make both Social Security and Medicare actuarily sound for the next 50 years fails by the Far Left saying neither program can be touched.

For both programs, their will need to be a Grand Compromise where benefits are cut and taxes raised.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Banditking

TC Nole OX

HR Legend
Mar 29, 2002
14,109
29,902
113
The Democrats' "shift to the left" on health care reform was to adopt a Republican governor's health care plan rather than single-payer like most of the rest of the developed world. The Republicans declared it socialism.

I'm still wondering what left, progressive, policy democrats have passed in the last 50 years. They have been republican lite and at times just short of full on republican since the early 1990s
 

BelemNole

HR Legend
Mar 29, 2002
34,026
71,559
113
In the first month of Biden's Presidency, 10 GOP Senators proposed spending $650 Billion on Covid. Ron Klain said no. The Bill ended up being $1.9 Trillion.

The Build Back Better Bill was initially $3 Trillion and actually Bernie proposed more than that but said he could come down to $3 Trillion. Thank God for Joe Manchin as he said that was too much. Most of the Dems were upset with Manchin. Finally it came in at $500 Billion.

I am a massive fan of both Truman and Clinton as they each balanced the budget 3 times. The only GOP Pres to do that was Ike.

Any attempt to make both Social Security and Medicare actuarily sound for the next 50 years fails by the Far Left saying neither program can be touched.

For both programs, their will need to be a Grand Compromise where benefits are cut and taxes raised.
It’s almost like something unprecedented was going on at the beginning of Biden’s presidency.
 

TC Nole OX

HR Legend
Mar 29, 2002
14,109
29,902
113
In the last 50 years. when have republicans ever delivered on their limited government, deficit reduction, rhetoric? I have been following politics closely since 1980. They have never done anything, when given the reigns of power, but spend like drunken sailors and run up massive amounts of debt.
 

PoopandBoogers

HR All-American
Mar 29, 2002
4,257
7,218
113
I'm still wondering what left, progressive, policy democrats have passed in the last 50 years. They have been republican lite and at times just short of full on republican since the early 1990s
As an indy, I agree. Perception vs Reality needs to be discussed and brought to the forefont more than a few blurbs on twitter and cheap shot gotchas.

Most of us are just normal people and wake up with a cup of coffee, glance at the results, shrug our shoulders, and maybe be like "oookayy",

Then walk out the door, and fuggin a, you just fuggin know it, the stomach rumbles start. And you don't know of it's just a windy ploof, kidney kiss, or a 2 hour disaster.

Then we end up on HROT. Attempted logins to Zoom rejected due to failed biometrics as I try clean my butt based on a suggested green alterative to Charmin, and a link to the shoes that my grandfather would slap the soul out of me for wearing. And yet, here we are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: torbee

West Dundee Hawkeye

HR All-American
Gold Member
Sep 28, 2003
2,854
1,409
113
In the last 50 years. when have republicans ever delivered on their limited government, deficit reduction, rhetoric? I have been following politics closely since 1980. They have never done anything, when given the reigns of power, but spend like drunken sailors and run up massive amounts of debt.
The Trumpers would not know a balanced budget if it hit them in the nose. The best President for balancing the budget in my lifetime was Bill Clinton. I am a massive fan of Bill Clinton.

Having said that, the big entitlement programs were all passed by Democrats. Those programs were all GOOD policy but just not paid for. They need to be.

There needs to be a Balanced Budget Amendment that can only be waived by natural disasters and declared wars.

I am an optimist and hope Biden does what Bill Clinton did and raise taxes and cut spending by equal amounts. When Clinton did this in 1993, it passed without any GOP support. Many said it would tank the economy but instead the 1990's boomed with the highest Labor Force Participation Rate since WWII.

Savings-Investment=Exports-Imports
 

Banditking

HR MVP
Apr 25, 2002
1,967
1,089
113
The Trumpers would not know a balanced budget if it hit them in the nose. The best President for balancing the budget in my lifetime was Bill Clinton. I am a massive fan of Bill Clinton.

Having said that, the big entitlement programs were all passed by Democrats. Those programs were all GOOD policy but just not paid for. They need to be.

There needs to be a Balanced Budget Amendment that can only be waived by natural disasters and declared wars.

I am an optimist and hope Biden does what Bill Clinton did and raise taxes and cut spending by equal amounts. When Clinton did this in 1993, it passed without any GOP support. Many said it would tank the economy but instead the 1990's boomed with the highest Labor Force Participation Rate since WWII.

Savings-Investment=Exports-Imports
Agree with a lot of this. Though Clinton’s spending initiatives were also blocked by gop and Gingrich’s congress was a big part of spending reduction/control. The internet bubble was also a big part of the booming 90s and it did crash hard. I’d say Reagan was the best president of my lifetime.
 
  • Like
Reactions: seminoleed

binsfeldcyhawk2

HR Legend
Gold Member
Oct 13, 2006
27,493
37,048
113
Too bad neither are showing the slightest inclination in that direction. Massive self-own by both parties.

Must read here:

Overcoming the Democratic Party brand

Cliff notes...no matter how much the Democrats insist on this board that the Democrats are totally mainstream, they aren't convincing the public. Republicans are DEFINITELY considered extreme...but the Democrats equally so. And in fact since most people shade themselves center-right, they rate themselves further from the Democrats than the Republicans.

(Here's where we get a string of progressives insisting that somehow everyone is merely FOOLED into thinking the Democrats are extreme, despite progressives having captured every university, every major media outlet outside of Fox News, etc)

Which party blinks first? Do either?

I go back and forth on that. Sometimes I think the Democrats could shift so much damn easier, they will be the ones. I already saw it in my lifetime with Bill Clinton...the game plan is right there. They don't have a particular individual to overcome like the Republicans have.

On the flip side, maybe that makes it more difficult? The Democrats have been hijacked by more of a set of ideas than a person that they can theoretically just move beyond. They've already turned over their newsrooms, universities, foundations, campaign apparatus, etc to the shrill woke true believers, is that actually harder to dismantle than the Republicans band of idiots that have abandoned the vast majority of their principles?

My gut feeling is still that Democrats can still make the move center a little more smoothly should they choose to, because they don't actually have a single individual that can cause chaos. They just need the right person...but I'm not sure who that is.
I think looking towards 2024 it all comes down to if R's can separate themselves from Trump. Pretty much that simple in my mind....I don't think they can.

If they somehow do the D's probably need to make some adjustments as well (less woke) but they're going to look at this mid terms as a validation of what they've been doing.

The Red dribble :)