#WALKAWAY It is easy to see how the Democrats are driving people away. While Trump might originally have caused a few neverTrump Republicans to walkaway, his actions are reeling many back in now. The Democrats have gone so far left they are openly embracing socialism. The more they follow the Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals playbook, they are driving more and more sane people away from their party. They will be stuck with a bunch of millennials (who will eventually mature and likely themselves "walkaway" over time) and socialist. The more they lose the more radical they are becoming which will just speed up this cycle.
respectfully Lou, I'm going to disagree with you here--or at least I'll question these statements. I don't see much centrism in the Democratic Party today, whereas the Republicans have a lot of people who hold their noses while "supporting Trump" (and honestly, who the hell actually "supports" Trump?), and economic libertarians who are pretty socially liberal otherwise. None of which applies to most of the militant Democrats I know.
That's because you see people like Clinton as "the left" when in reality she is very center. Even Obama was very centrist - keep in mind that Obamacare was the health plan of Republicans, not the left - until Obama co-opted it. He basically stole Gringich's and Romney's plan. The far left were never fans of Clinton, which is why they rebelled as Bernie Brothers and probably costed her the election.
pretty much this. "The indulgence of Avenatti’s bizarro story of a supposed high school 'rape gang”'was probably the key turning point, not simply because it was so preposterous that only a Democrat and their media toadies could possibly believe it, but because it proved the tipping point for Kavanaugh himself, whose vigorous attack on the Democrats in last Thursday’s hearing contrasted with his more restrained appearance on Martha McCallum’s show on Fox earlier in the week, and his measured responses to the Judiciary Committee staff inquiries into the new allegations. (That and it summoned up Lindsey Graham’s Incredible Hulk move.)" https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/10/the-us-now-praise-democratic-party-incompetence.php
Yeah there's almost nothing left when it comes to left wing moderates. They've all moved to the extremes and actively work as inquisitors to remove any heresy (those who don't move to the left with them). You'll find all kinds of diversity of thought on the right, but no real strong leadership.
It's interesting to remember -- there used to be pro-life Democrats. I don't think they exist any longer. There are, however, still some pro-choice Republicans.
what is pro life? Personally I'm pro life but the hypocrisy is that many on the right stop caring for children after they're born. That's not pro life. Those single mothers, because it's not the married women, statistically that are getting abortions..those single mothers need help, their child needs insurance. You can't be selective. I also believe it doesn't get more big brother than the government telling you what a woman can or can't do with her body while they themselves get abortions for their mistresses. It's pretty f'd up if you ask me .
You are wrong. Most of the country is anti-abortion at a certain point. Pro-life advocates need to decide a point in a woman's pregnancy that is too late. If they did that, they'd have most of the country on their side. As is, most women do not get abortions past 8 weeks...which means most happen before, at this point does the fetus has consciousness enough to be called a "Baby"? I think, good luck making that argument, we can't even really define what consciousness is and what it really means. You could easily pass abortion for late term pregnancies or probably even earlier than that, say 10-12 weeks. You could easily get the majority of the country to agree on this and run on this. I'd agree on it, that I'm fine with a woman who made a mistake during intimacy (or her partner) and she doesn't want to live with that mistake, fine, she gets 10 weeks to decide if she wants that abortion. The radical position here is being taken by many on the right, that all abortions should be illegal, and it's the position I am assuming you are taking (you can clarify, by all means...) and that's the problem with the country. With Guns on the left: BAN ALL GUNS! ~ On the right: GIVE EVERYONE A GUN, EVEN THE TEACHERS! there is a reasonable middle ground here that can be reached. Abortion On the left: ALL ABORTION SHOULD BE LEGAL! ~ On the right: Pfft, no Abortions at all in fact, F contraceptives too! Don't have sex till your married thot. Again, a reasonable middle ground can be reached here so that we can all be happy and proud of the country we live in and tolerate each other.
There's a lot one could say about the abortion issue, but the one thing I never hear is: if women get a choice, why don't men? The woman has a choice about having the baby or aborting it. Men have no choice. If the man wants the baby, but the woman doesn't, the baby is not born. If the woman wants the baby, but the man doesn't, he nevertheless gets stuck with 18 years of child support. I would support both men and women's right to choose. Men cannot force the baby to be aborted, but they should also be able to walk away if they want to. It's called "paternal surrender." The policy we have now is both illogical and unfair.
I agree somewhat and I think what you see happening with athletes and baby mamas getting millions from the babies they have with pro athletes highlights this issue. I do think that just opening the door for men to freely walk away isn't fair to women and it's bad for the country and promotes fatherlessness so I'm not sure what you do other than revise the rates of child support. Should probably be more of a flat rate, just enough to support the child through ages 1-18
Let me edit this statement to reflect reality: There's almost nothing left of Right wing Moderates, they have all moved to the support of Trumpism scared they will lose funding and get Primaried. In contrast to the lock-step of the GOP the Democratic party has a more diverse constituency that is harder to cover under one banner i.e. Minority rights, women's rights, pay equity, healthcare solutions, climate change actions, educational support etc. The GOP is pretty much limited to abortion, tax cuts for the rich, and xenophobia. (apparently fiscal conservatism is dead)
No, my statement was accurate, and yours simply is not. Though I understand the desire to spin it as if what you are saying is accurate but the facts simply don't support your spin.
I'm not going to get into a back and forth over this because I know you won't concede it but... The graph was never suposed to be presented in this way (Vertical) and you know it isn't because the graph doesn't actually have numbers on it so that there is no 'middle' on the graph. A bunch of editors clipped the graph like this and I think misrepresent what this study was trying to say. Here is how Pew actually presents the graph... http://www.people-press.org/2017/10/05/1-partisan-divides-over-political-values-widen/ All it is saying is that the 'median liberal' is further away from the 'median conservative' now, not that anyone is closer to a middle, the graph literally has no statistical middle, it's more of a venn diagram, just that both are further apart. The study wasn't about who is more 'extreme' or 'radical' it's about how once both parties held liberals and conservative in 1994 but now that is no longer the case. "By comparison, in 1994 there was substantially more overlap between the two partisan groups than there is today: Just 64% of Republicans were to the right of the median Democrat, while 70% of Democrats were to the left of the median Republican. Put differently, in 1994 23% of Republicans were more liberal than the median Democrat; while 17% of Democrats were more conservative than the median Republican. Today, those numbers are just 1% and 3%, respectively."
When it is displayed that way, it makes it easier to see the movement from both sides. I could understand why you would be against that given that you prefer to ignore the obvious, but it is what it is. The left has moved really far to the left over that time frame and they've all but eliminated diversity of thought in the Democratic party. Now looking at the chart, it's possible that the right is about to do the same as the left and kill off diversity of opinion and shift things to the right, but that hasn't happened yet.
When it is displayed that way it is displayed incorrectly and not as it was intended. You can choose to ignore it to perpetuate a false narrative that isn't in the research but I have provided the original data and the link to such data (and the description and context) merely so that everyone can see it and read it as is should they wish to. It's sad that we have people that twist data and studies to reach partisan conclusions but it isn't surprising, unfortunately. There is no middle, we know it has no middle because there are no numbers on the graph, if you read about the methodolgy you'd understand why this is. I do thank you for conceding that the graph has to be displayed a certain way to reach the conclusion you've reached though. That's exactly how people twist data and facts, looking at it their own way instead of seeing it how it was presented. There is nothing in this study that even hints on diversity of thought, nothing at all. In fact, one could argue that the further both sides are the more diversity of thought there is. Again, the graph is comparing the Medians of each side to EACHOTHER, it's saying that both medians have moved apart from each other. Whereas in 1994 the median conservative shared many opinions with the Democratic party and vice versa where the median liberal held many opinions with the Republican party. Except if you continue to read the 10 page report, which I know you did not, or you conveniently ignored what you didn't want to see, you'd see that the right has indeed done just that. Bascially what they found is that Democrats moved left on several issues and Republicans moved right on several issues, the result is that the medians of both parties are further apart. It's not that either side has gone 'extreme' what is 'extreme' or 'radical' is entirely subjective anyway.
There's nothing "incorrect" about displaying the image that way, it's the exact same data, it's just easier to see the movement when you display the images vertically. I mean, it's not like you can't see the same thing when you display the charts horizontally, it's just not quite as easy to see the movement that way. I know you don't like the results, because it runs counter to what you want to believe, but there was nothing at all dishonest about showing the graphs that way. The left has moved to the fringes and they have gotten rid of diversity of opinion within the Democratic party. Honestly there's nothing you can do to change that fact. Your only options are to embrace the fact or lie about it.
"By comparison, in 1994 there was substantially more overlap between the two partisan groups than there is today: Just 64% of Republicans were to the right of the median Democrat, while 70% of Democrats were to the left of the median Republican. Put differently, in 1994 23% of Republicans were more liberal than the median Democrat; while 17% of Democrats were more conservative than the median Republican. Today, those numbers are just 1% and 3%, respectively." This is the summary of the chart, if you can read it's actually saying that there are more Democrats that are more conservative than the median Republican... So what has happened is...as you put it.... 'The right has moved to the fringes and they have gotten rid of diversity of opinion within the Republican party. Honestly there's nothing you can do to change that fact. Your only options are to embrace the fact or lie about it."
