Again, you imply that there is actually an extreme of the Democratic Party that has any legislative power (or even has representatives in Congress) while also suggesting that there are Republicans who are actually moderate. Let’s take Mitt Romney for example - the fact that he didn’t support the attempted coup on Jan 6 or voted to impeach Trump doesn’t make him a moderate (or even a “regular”) conservative. That just means he isn’t a committed authoritarian. Does he support universal voting access? Does he support a fair tax structure? Does he support civil rights for all Americans? Did he vote against any of the extremist judges (Kavanaugh, Coney Barrett)? All I know is is that he once heloed enact a state government health plan in Massachusetts but repudiated it when he ran for President and some of its components had been included as part of Obamacare. But otherwise, I have not heard him support a single moderate position (he’s anti-abortion, he isn’t supporting any of the voting rights bills, and he definitely doesn’t support repealing those outrageously irresponsible corporate tax cuts). How exactly is he moderate? How can the Democrats work with him when he gives every indicator of being a hardcore conservative? Right now, asking the Democrats to work with Republicans is like asking an LGBTQ group to work with the Westbrook Baptist Church and then criticizing “extremists on both sides” when things inevitably break down. In both cases, only one group has legitimate positions.
Everytime there's a republican president New Yokers die, from a plane crashing to a pandemic. I move out if im them
Year by year the GOP base is dwindling as this country becomes more diverse, accepting of LGTBQ, racially intermixed, less religiously affiliated, and more college educated. I seriously doubt Republicans ever win another popular vote. All of those are antithetical to the GOP base which is why they are so desperate to grab onto the machismo adoring Latino bloc. Given enough time the idea of for profit healthcare, citizens walking around with guns like the Old West, spending Billions on a standing army and bases around the globe will be seen as ridiculous. Just like not allowing women to vote, not allowing gay marriage, separate but equal facilities, etc. seem ridiculous now. Point is the Dems need to continue to focus on the small steps to get us where we need to go. Turning the refundable child tax credit into basically UBI was brilliant for example. Now it needs to be extended. Once in place and people are used to it it will never be able to go away. Biden needs to take a stance on student loan forgiveness. If he doesn’t have the balls to cancel $10,000 or $50,000 hiding behind he thinks he can’t do that legally then he needs to extend the executive order on the repayment pause until the end of his term. It effectively accomplishes the same goal. If the GOP wins the Presidency let them force millions of Americans to start paying it back. Good luck on that. I am happy that traction is being made on Infrastructure and hopefully the reconciliation bill gets done. Biden should be taking stronger actions on student loans and Medicare for All before the midterms though. You have a majority slim as it is give people the Public Option.
I wrote pretty clearly, so don't understand the long analysis of what you believe I implied. Again, I am in favor of people from both parties working together. If you don't think that's possible, and if you think there has to be some sort of purity check then I reckon we will have to agree to disagree and I will just wish you luck attracting enough people to get your desired objectives completed.
Dude, you’re being lazy. I’ve opened the door for you to demonstrate that there is a realistic way for Democrats and Republicans to work together. I’ve given you evidence that a so called moderate Republican like Mitt Romney would never, ever work with Democrats on the very issues (health care, voting rights, civil rights, taxation) that so badly need to be resolved in order to prevent the very real danger of right wing authoritarianism taking over. You could actually add to this discussion by providing some counter evidence but instead you’ve punted and denied exactly what your own words said. I would love for this to be a world where liberals and conservatives had substantive discussions on the size and scope of our government. I would love to see similar substantive discussions on taxation, health care, non-emergency economic stimulus legislation and education. Any politician who comes to the table with a good faith, fact-based argument - even if I disagree vehemently- is cool with me. And I really do believe that compromise is possible when both sides stand for something more than the accumulation of power and money. The Republican Party is not a good faith party, however. It’s a toxic blend of greed and death-cult evangelism. Do you think good government can come from working with them? Seriously? What is the “middle ground” between free, fair and accessible voting and suppression of voting rights for anyone not a white Christian? I’ve repeated myself a lot here - partly because I truly believe moderates don’t understand the precarious situation that their “both sides” attitude has created and partly because I’m hoping someone will come in here and actually show me evidence that I’m wrong.
yes I acknowledged that in an earlier post. He then proceeded to repudiate it when he ran for President. He certainly hasn’t pushed for a similar program on a national scale.
Fair enough, I think the Dems should blow up the fillibuster which is left over from the Jim Crow days and is not in the constitution, the majority should not be held back by the minority, and implement all the things they want....screw the GOP, they aren't working FOR the country they are working for their OWN pockets.... Just do what is right and let them b****, moan and whine, and when the American people see that the Dems policies help the majority, it will be over for this generation of fundamentalists. DD
I've "punted" this because I don't believe your vision and approach is (1) possible and (2) even good for the country if it couldn't get passed in a country that is 40 some odd % Democrats, 40% some odd % republican, and 20 some odd % other/don't know/don't care. So while you can scream and shout about republicans and even moderate Democrats and the need for a pure Democrat approach, it simply won't happen, at least not in the United States. I would be happy if instead you focused on "substantive discussion of discussion on taxation, healthcare, education since I believe you will have a better chance attracting enough people to your positions. Well, perhaps not taxation since that seems the home field of the republican party. But again, I believe you will need to attract the participation and support of more that the 40 odd % you are preaching to. Last, rejecting anyone not in your 40 odd % of the people doesn't seem like it will ultimately win...
same idea https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/09/03/supreme-court-rides-bidens-rescue/ Opinion: The Supreme Court rides to Biden’s rescue Opinion by Kathleen Parker Columnist September 3, 2021 at 6:31 p.m. EDT President Biden’s personal hell month featured the devastation of Hurricane Ida, our country’s dreadful withdrawal from Afghanistan, mounting deaths from covid-19’s delta variant, overcrowded ICUs, a dragging economy, many schools opening and some nearly closing down, and uncontrollable fires out west. What did I forget? The president has been bouncing all over the four Horses of the Apocalypse, a reluctant gladiator trying to rein in the ruin of his presidency when, suddenly, a double rainbow appears over the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court’s 5-to-4 refusal to block a Texas law restricting abortion to no more than six weeks of gestation was an early Christmas gift to Biden and the Democratic Party. Thanks to cultural conservatives, pro-lifers and even former president Donald Trump, Republicans finally may have overstepped. The court certainly ended Biden’s run of bad luck. Hell is the only way to describe what many Americans are experiencing across several states, especially in Louisiana, where power is gone, temperatures are high and moist, and mosquitoes are as hungry as the folks lined up for food. One could be forgiven for thinking the world was ending. But leave it to the GOP to shift the focus from climate devastation and the Taliban takeover to abortion and a procedural ruling that doesn’t mean as much as has been conveyed. Not yet anyway. A much bigger fight — maybe the pivotal fight — in the abortion wars is coming up soon — Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. More on that in a minute. Meanwhile, even as other Republican states plan to follow Texas, including Florida and South Dakota, the court was very clear that procedural issues wouldn’t allow it to consider the constitutionality of the Texas Heartbeat Act. The act prohibits a physician from performing an abortion “if the physician detected a fetal heartbeat for the unborn child or failed to perform a test to detect a fetal heartbeat.” Interestingly, the Texas law doesn’t allow Texas officials to enforce the act. Instead, it authorizes private citizens to bring civil action against lawbreakers, including doctors, employees and insurers. In so doing, lawmakers rather cleverly established sovereign immunity for state officials should anyone try to sue them over the constitutionality of the law. When various abortion providers and a private citizen sought an injunction against state officials, including the attorney general, they were essentially creating a firestorm in a mud puddle. They did manage to draw attention to the new law, however, and in doing so, forced five of the nine justices to rule (correctly, it seems to me) in such a way that women everywhere could get behind the idea of hating the court anew. Bottom line: Because there were no real defendants, there was no live case and no dispute to reckon over. So, the Texas law went into effect. Here, a brief sidebar is warranted. Much has changed since 1973, when Roe v. Wade became the law of the land. I was there. Back in the day, a woman had to wait at least six weeks to find out if she was pregnant, a process that had to involve a doctor or a lab. Today, in addition to an array of birth control options, women have access to inexpensive home pregnancy tests that can deliver results in seven to 10 days after ovulation — and before a missed period. Emergency contraception such as the “day-after pill” is also available for women who don’t want to wait for a home test. Even so, and probably as a result, most Americans (59 percent) still think abortion should be legal in all or most cases, according to the Pew Research Center. Two generations of women who’ve always had reproductive choice can’t imagine living in a world that could force them to have babies they don’t want or are unprepared to raise. The 2017 cat-hat marches to demonstrate disapproval of Trump’s “grab’ em” remark will seem like marching band practice if the Supreme Court eventually finds the votes to end Roe. Arguments will be held this fall in the earlier mentioned Dobbs case, which challenges the constitutionality of a Mississippi law banning abortions (with exceptions) after the 15th week of pregnancy. The Supreme Court decided in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992 that abortions could be legally performed until fetal “viability,” or about 24 weeks. But that was, it is now easy to forget, 30 years ago. Whatever happens, the next several weeks will most certainly be a wall-to-wall abortion freakout, giving Biden a minute or two to recover from an August that he’d probably like to forget. He is surely eager to dismount from his wild ride — and Democrats can climb out from beneath the covers.
this is the same bullshitt people pull with me. just attend to his arguments rather than worry about labeling him I'm not really aiming this at you, per se, as a criticism, it's just there's way too much of this kind of inane line-drawing and boundary-marking on this forum imo
Fair enough but he barely posts anything but liberal tweets. He doesn't even post in the main sports sections. I don't care about people's political affiliations but it's strange to be on a basketball message board and spend the bulk of your time talking politics
LOL... you must have missed the part of this thread with one of the posters debating with me and criticizing my moderate positions. But that's OK, since you must get confused easily when away from your 4Chan and Birch Society discussion groups, and I must appear very liberal.
Its the off season for basketball, football season is just starting up, and I do post in the Astros thread. And I follow lots of republican twitter accounts and often post their tweets. You seem to confuse anyone that is critical of trump and the retrumplican party as "liberal". Have you ever heard of the Lincoln Project? Is Lynn Cheney a "liberal"? Maybe you should go back to criticizing LOFs since it seems more in your sweet spot.
No. I don't post on 4chan or whatever Birch is because I'm not 12. You can lie about being a far left hack but your post history creates a vast different narrative
What's a moderate in your eyes? What is a politician you can point to that is a moderate for a baseline? And you lack self-awareness if you labels others delusional and have told multiple people including a woman poster that they are a failure in life because they don't have kids. Anyways I really hope you are trolling and aren't sincere because that frankly would be worse in your case.
