Are the Democrats back on track?

Most Americans don't understand the extent to which "grassroots" movements are astro-turfed by billionaires with vested interests. Koch, who founded the Cato Institute, also bankrolled the Tea Party movement. The Mercers are the big contributors to Breitbart and the AltRight/AltLite, and were the backers of Milo and Steve Bannon until they left the reservation and the Mercers pulled the plug. The influential Heritage Foundation was started by the ultra-conservative Coors interests and its trustees include major corporations. Wiiiam Regnery uses his inherited wealth to fund far-right ethno-nationalist causes. And people fall for it.

 

Goodlatte's own son has donated the maximum amount to the Democrat running against his own father. He has released a statement that says he got five other people to donate the maximum allowed to the Democrat running against his father. This says a lot about what we can expect in November! Yes the Democrats are back on track!

 

Hugo was a great leader!

 

Matthew Shepard was put to death in Republican Wyoming.

 

I don't know about that. There's plenty of people out there in the world who despise western civilization and traditions, and would be content in bringing it all down. And I'm beginning to see that you might be in that demographic too . *sigh*. While the west isn't perfect, its the best the world has to offer as a blueprint for advancing humanity.

I may be a lot of things, but an ethno-nationalist I am not. You can call me names like alt-light all day long, but it isn't a label I'm willing to accept for myself. Today it might mean what you and I believe it to mean. But later on the goalpost will move and it could mean something much much worse to a definition that any decent human being would find atrocious.

Hmmmm. I guess this is what they always meant by liberal tolerance.

Islam is more than just a religion. It is also a political philosophy. One that lands very far on the right in the spectrum. It also has some inconvenient conflicting interests with a constitutional system of governance. I have my grievances with Christianity too, but for the most part it's just self-rightous republicans who are trying to keep "In god we trust" on the money, and trying to legislate morality on the populace. The political philosophy islam is like that, but on bovine growth steroids.

When more than half the country is slightly overweight, to extremely out of shape, there is an obesity problem that the USA needs to addressed.

My problem isn't that it's trying to lift the spirits of fat people by whispering sweet nothings in their ears; saying that beauty is a social construct, and that it's inner beauty that matters most.

My problem is that the left understands overweight people take up more than half the country's populace; that's an excellent focus group to score more votes. So they create this artificial sense of community to take them in and exploit their votes. Meanwhile, doing nothing to address the ever rising rate of obesity.

You want public health care, right? Well the NHS in Great Britain is spending more time, money, and resources addressing obesity related illnesses, than they are with smoking related health problems. How do you expect to sustain a public funded healthcare system, if you're not doing anything to take care of preventative measures?

NHS England » Get serious about obesity or bankrupt the NHS – Simon Stevens
More spent on treating obesity-related conditions than on the police or fire service, says NHS Chief

 

this phrase seems speculative. I don't think we share the "traditions" that you're implying. Further, I think that some very strong traditions are cultural. As such, they aren't the same for you as they are for me. I think that culture is super important!

 

I believe I wrote that in about January of '17.

Seems that since then, the goalposts have been moved, as I've explained to you once before. What used to mean an alternative to corporate republicanism, is now a brand of white nationalism via "peacefully" relocating people. I don't identify with that group at all.

Have you ever disagreed with the left? Or any left wing party's majority decision?

-Pro Choice
-Anti GMO foods
-Favor of having public space for people to organize and demonstrate their beliefs
-Don't believe the government should have any religious authority in the state
-Pro-legalization of recreational drugs
-Favor of cutting defense spending
-Favor of removing military bases from around the world
-Favor an easier and more efficient path to legal immigration
-I see the advantages and disadvantages in public and private sector goods and services

I can probably think of some more later

See "moving the goalpost" above

 

Read carefully. I didn't say you were one. I said it's an ideology you push. None of us likes to be labeled, but if the label fits, wear it. I haven't noticed an idea from you yet on these threads that didn't originate first from Milo and his ilk. The views you express are nativism, pure and simple. There may be a fine line between ethno-nationalism and the "Western Chauvinism" Gavin McInnes and the Proud Boys are espousing (his term), but the views you've expressed on this thread are "Western Chauvinist" through and through. Whether or not you actually believe them is irrelevant. And as I said, tolerance, pluralism, the rule of law, and constitutionalism are central elements of western culture that seem to be missing from the AltLite equation. Aryan civilization, western civilization--same difference as far as functional impact is concerned. I'm proud of western civilization myself, but not as part of a package that serves the AltRight/AltLite agenda.

 

So like the intolerant to complain about intolerance when they think somebody isn't tolerating them. I have no tolerance at all for religious (or irreligious) bigotry, whether the offenders are Muslim, Christian, or secularists.

As has often been pointed out, you over-generalize about "Islam". I'd place your own ideology or that of the nativist ideologues you admire as pretty far right on the spectrum--a threat to the integrity of the constitutional system the United States has enjoyed for over two centuries. Libertarian populism doesn't quite fit traditional right-left schema, but unbridled capitalim and xenophobia are generally regarded as right wing views. It serves the political interests of those "self-righteous" Republicans, and if and when they consolidate their power, expect to be thrown under the bus if you don't get on board.

Shaming is never an effective way to get people to change their habits. It's cruel, unproductive, and risks causing suicide and anorexia. Any good libertarian should respect the right of people to choose their own priorities and values and not get all paternalistic about it.

 

6

Here are you own words “Some racists identify alt-right, but the movement is more diverse than that” then you go on to explain that to you the things that define someone as been part of the alt-right are a disgust in corporate globalism, global governance, wasteful interventionism and in despising such things as identity politics and language policing. All things that you have promoted in your posts – you self-identify as alt-right. (Oh then there are all the posts attacking islam and black lives matter)

So have your views changed on the issues above since you posted them?

 

6

You - So sure. Call me far right all you want. Despite the fact that my social views are very center leaning.

Me - Which social views of yours are 'center leaning', from what i've read they seem to be based on right wing Social Darwinist ideas.

Well first not all of these are connected to ‘social’ policy viewpoints. So let’s look at what is normally thought of the definition of social policy – covering the welfare state, social services, criminal justice, inequality, education, poverty, ill-health, housing and unemployment.

-Pro Choice

Well I know of right wingers that are pro-choice many far right libertarians are for example, so it’s not exactly an indication of a centre position. It not a black and white issue it has shades, I’d allow abortions but it would have to conform to some regulations and I’d like to have other policies in place (sex education, free healthcare and contraception) to try and limit the need to a very minimum.

-Anti GMO foods

Why is this a social issue to you and a 'center leaning' position? I know of left wingers that are not opposed to GMO.

-Favor of having public space for people to organize and demonstrate their beliefs

What do you mean?

-Don't believe the government should have any religious authority in the state

Again I know many on the right that believe the same.

-Pro-legalization of recreational drugs

Again I’ve meet many on the right that believe the same, I began a thread on these forums on the difference between right wing legalisation and left wing regulation.

-Favor of cutting defense spending

How is this a social issue?

-Favor of removing military bases from around the world

How is this a social issue?

-Favor an easier and more efficient path to legal immigration

Why do you see this a centre ground policy?

-I see the advantages and disadvantages in public and private sector goods and services

Which is pretty meaningless unless we know what you mean by that.

 

6

So ok now let’s hear what left leaning views you have on what are normally thought of as social issues

The welfare state

Social services

Criminal justice

Inequality,

Education,

Public Healthcare

Public Housing

Unemployment benifits.

 

6

WHY DO YOU KEEP REPEATING STUFF ALREADY COVERED

I mean for fuck sake man I can reply just with quote from the time we went into this before

Remember this ?

Sorry I need to remind you once again to think before you post – the point I was making was that the whole health thing is a misdirection – I remember this person that was opposed to homosexuality and when fulled up on it he went into this whole spiel about being concerned about gay people’s health, that he wanted to protect them from their ‘unhealthy lifestyles’.

*

As has been made clear your whole ‘fat shaming’ thing isn’t about concerns about women’s health that is something you bring up when pulled up on it.

Which makes it clear once again that your viewpoint isn’t motivated by a concern for women’s health but your views on women’s appearance (with emphasis it seems on how they look scantily dressed).

*

We went through the whole thing about how smoking was reduced

The great steps forward in lessening the numbers smoking was (and is) mainly down to publically funded education, regulation and law in the teeth of commercial opposition and many on the libertarian right.

And how many governments are doing the same with obesity and as i pointed out

Thing is that I don’t think anyone here is opposed to prompting healthy lifestyles, and I think most people would support publically funded education (to counter interested parties adverts) alongside regulation to have proper labelling and for example, to curb things like sugar and fat content in some foods especially those aimed at children.

The problem is that you seem more interested in wanting to insult people you don’t seem to think of as attractive as fat, gross and ugly.

 

Are Democrats back on track we’ll see at the Midterms.

If the midterms were held today the democrats would assume control over the house of representatives, and the first order of business
would be to start impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump.

But things could change between now and November, so we’ll just wait and see.

 

This point deserves emphasis. It's really common for the religious right to use this as their justification for attacking gays. "Tough love".

*

 

The dems should not align themselves with Bernie. He is too far left for the majority of the voters in this country.
Most of the people that Bernie has supported in the primaries, have lost.
As of today, the dems best hope to reclaim the presidency is Kamala Harris.

 

Okie

It is one of the oldest tricks in the book going back thousands of years.

It has been common even up today to ‘whip’ the sin out of people (often kids) for their own good.

There were those that would burn witches to save their souls, now those of a similar mind frame abuse what they see as unattractive women to ‘save their souls’, claiming they only do it ‘for their own good’.

 

Anyway back to the subject

The US has a two party system when it really needs one that has multiple parties and proportional representation.

But I don’t see anything changing with that soon.

So the US has is two political grouping made up of multiple factions, for many years as others have pointed out these have basically been two groupings of the right, on the Democrats leaning to centre right and the Republicans been further to the right.

*

In the Republican party the neo-cons were dominant up to the demises of the Bush Jr Administration, and since then the party has been in flux with no one faction being able to gain control.

There is the Christian right, the moderates, the libertarians, some holdover neo-cons and shades in-between that blow with the wind and added to this is now the Trump Republicans.

But basically over the years the moderates have been culled so that there are few left the Republican Party has gone from something that supported Keynesian economic models and Nixon contemplation bringing in universal basic income to a political party becoming increasingly dominated by the ideological extremes of the Freedom Caucus.

As to the Democrats, they would be seem in most democracies as basically a right leaning capitalist Liberal Party only in the US political system are they seen as a ‘left wing’ because the US political system is skewed toward the right. To me the Clinton Democrats have dominated the Party since the 90’s These are Democrats that have to one degree or another accept neo-liberal economic ideas rather than Keynesian or socialist models. There are those that identify themselves as socialists in the Democratic Party but these have not been an influential faction.

*

The question is what happens if the Democratic Party moves to the left, would this ‘pull’ those in the Republicans back from their presently extreme position, so that the US political landscape becomes more balanced?

And would it be allowed to do so in a society that has become more plutocratic and where wealth will fight tooth and nail against any move of society to the left?

 

When you mention neo-cons, does that mean the Tea Party? I know the Tea Party were around in Congress after Bush Jr. was already out of office. They were partially responsible for the demise of the Cap and Trade bill to diminish carbon emissions in 2010.

I never felt like the Tea Party had wholesome interests. They seemed like Klansmen or something. Like they were from a bygone era, fear-mongering those trying to live in the present. Is that still a thing?

 

Hi Soul

In basic terms

Neo-cons – New Conservatives - they are basically foreign policy hawks that wanted an aggressive foreign policy to further US interests around the globe, they pushed very hard to have the war in Iraq (it was to be the showcase of their ideas and jumping off point to attack Iran)

There ideas however were shit and the shit hit the fan in Iraq

I wrote back in 2008 a thread called -Neo-cons fall, who’ll rise on the right?- In which I predicted the winners could be the more libertarian right then the Tea Party guys turned up which was, at least at the beginning, a libertarian led movement

Neo-cons fall, who’ll rise on the right?

The Tea Party basically morphed into the Republican Party faction that calls itself The Freedom Caucus’