I Noticed About 80% Of Posters Here Are From The Left

[Perotista]

That was me. The left have gone so far to the left that they have fallen off the edge of the Earth, proving that the Earth is indeed flat. I would have voted for anyone to beat the democrats and I did. And, no matter what Trump does, I don't think I would ever want to find a time machine and go back and change my vote. If democrats want me to start considering them again they have to regain their sanity and become a moderate party. And yet they are doing the exact opposite. Progressives now run the DNC.

What was interesting about the 2024 election is that 53% of all Americans viewed Trump’s views as too extreme with 48% saying Harris’s views were too extreme. Then asked who is too extreme, 39% answered only Harris, 45% only Trump, 8% both Harris and Trump, 4% neither.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2024/exit-polls/national-results/general/president/0

Those results indicate to me that the republican party has moved way too far to the right while the democratic party moved way too far left that neither is considered mainstream anymore. I’m old enough to remember when both major parties had their conservative and liberal wings. The democrats had their solid conservative south and the republicans their old Rockefeller liberal republicans of the north east. Then both major parties go rid of their unwanted wings and then began getting rid of their moderates. The result has been the growth of independents, swing voters as both major parties has shrunk and in the case of the democratic party, shrunk by a whole lot.

 

[choiceone]

Take this, just for one example:

I didn't get anything but the picture. Am I supposed to get some explanation with it, or are you expecting me to get it myself?

 

[choiceone]

I am against using abortion as a method of birth control. Let's say that I disagree with Trump on that. Is the solution voting for democrats?

I have little to say to this, because I don't think that a woman who has an abortion to avoid the health challenges of pregnancy and childbirth, which are often rather expensive, after she used contraception and it failed, is being at all irresponsible. And I do think it's not your business unless we can figure out a way to get God to transfer her pregnancy and all the health challenges to you and your body.

Farmers may be freaking out but nothing has happened yet, other than freaking out.

No, all of the farmers who depended on USAID contracts for part of their income are already not getting to plan on that part of their income this year.

Maybe Trump hasn't deported as many as Obama did (It's only been 3 months so I don't know how you compare that) but, Trump has made it so less people come, meaning less people need deporting. That should actually be the case. We want illegals coming here to be zero so that deportations are zero.

The way we get fewer people as illegal immigrants is exactly the way we get fewer people as legal ones or even tourists and the way we get people abroad not wanting to invest in the US. If you destabilize your economy and destroy basic democratic values, no one wants to have anything to do with your country.

The highest violent crime rates are in the blue cities, some of which are located in red states, such as Atlanta.

That's because they are more highly populated. But in fact, in NY, a blue state, NYC violent crime declined, so the per capita rate became lower. A glance at national stats shows that violent crime is a problem, but when it is broken down by state, the South turns out to be responsible for the high national rate. Every red state with lots of violent crime in its blue cities is still responsible for its own crime. Here in NY, we don't take responsibility for the evils of Georgia - that's on Georgia, not on Democrats in NY.

You mean like Bud Light? Anyway, DEI policies are discriminatory because you can't be more diverse without excluding others.

Actually, DEI policies were largely those of Affirmative Action. It isn't supposed to mean that you disadvantage white males - it means you advertise openness to diversity and then make sure that you are not unconsciously discriminating against various minorities or women in considering candidates. When that is done, white males are not privileged, youth is not privileged, and various minorities and women with qualifications get a shot, too. But young white men were so privileged for so long that they are now afraid because they have to make it on merit in pretty fair competition now.

 

[choiceone]

What was interesting about the 2024 election is that 53% of all Americans viewed Trump’s views as too extreme with 48% saying Harris’s views were too extreme. Then asked who is too extreme, 39% answered only Harris, 45% only Trump, 8% both Harris and Trump, 4% neither.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2024/exit-polls/national-results/general/president/0

Those results indicate to me that the republican party has moved way too far to the right while the democratic party moved way too far lefhttps://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/04/09/age-generational-cohorts-and-party-identification/t that neither is considered mainstream anymore. I’m old enough to remember when both major parties had their conservative and liberal wings. The democrats had their solid conservative south and the republicans their old Rockefeller liberal republicans of the north east. Then both major parties go rid of their unwanted wings and then began getting rid of their moderates. The result has been the growth of independents, swing voters as both major parties has shrunk and in the case of the democratic party, shrunk by a whole lot.

The pew research report shows that only among people over 50 does 50% or more view themselves as Republicans or those leaning Republican. Among those under 50, 50% or more view themselves as Democrats or those leaning Democrat. What's more, the older the cohort, the more Republican it is, and the younger the cohort, the more Democratic it is. As 40% of Americans are Independents, and therefore basically leaners, the two major parties appear to be about equal today.

So it's silly to see the Democrats' shrinkage as more serious. The fact is, the Republicans are, populationally, closer to death. Like it or not, the future is, ultimately, progressive.

The old Southern Democrats began dying out in the 1960s, about 60 years ago. They became Republicans.

 

[Moderate Right]

What was interesting about the 2024 election is that 53% of all Americans viewed Trump’s views as too extreme with 48% saying Harris’s views were too extreme. Then asked who is too extreme, 39% answered only Harris, 45% only Trump, 8% both Harris and Trump, 4% neither.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2024/exit-polls/national-results/general/president/0

Those results indicate to me that the republican party has moved way too far to the right while the democratic party moved way too far left that neither is considered mainstream anymore. I’m old enough to remember when both major parties had their conservative and liberal wings. The democrats had their solid conservative south and the republicans their old Rockefeller liberal republicans of the north east. Then both major parties go rid of their unwanted wings and then began getting rid of their moderates. The result has been the growth of independents, swing voters as both major parties has shrunk and in the case of the democratic party, shrunk by a whole lot.

I think a core difference is when it comes to spending and the national debt. While I'm actually a moderate, I do understand that moderates and centrists seem to be just fine with the staus quo of adding even more onto our 36 trillion dollar national debt. Don't make waves, compromise, be nice, and let the debt just grow and grow. I understand more and more that many of those "extremist" righties are tired of no one addressing our runaway debt and are willing to be hardcore in fighting it, even if they have to burn the house down in order to do it. I'm that moderate who also wants to get our finances under control and it is about time someone gets serious about it instead of more of the same ole same ole compromising that continues to add onto the national debt.

 

[tharock220]

You're going to see more leftoids here daily. None of them have jobs. If they worked for a living, they wouldn't be leftoids.

 

[Hari Seldon]

You're going to see more leftoids here daily. None of them have jobs. If they worked for a living, they wouldn't be leftoids.

Wow, wingnut central.

 

[Perotista]

The pew research report shows that only among people over 50 does 50% or more view themselves as Republicans or those leaning Republican. Among those under 50, 50% or more view themselves as Democrats or those leaning Democrat. What's more, the older the cohort, the more Republican it is, and the younger the cohort, the more Democratic it is. As 40% of Americans are Independents, and therefore basically leaners, the two major parties appear to be about equal today.

So it's silly to see the Democrats' shrinkage as more serious. The fact is, the Republicans are, populationally, closer to death. Like it or not, the future is, ultimately, progressive.

The old Southern Democrats began dying out in the 1960s, about 60 years ago. They became Republicans.

Most of the old southern democrats remained loyal to the democratic party although a few did indeed become republicans. Here’s Pew research party affiliation 1939-2014

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/feature/party-id-trend/

And Gallup picking it up from there.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

 

[Perotista]

I think a core difference is when it comes to spending and the national debt. While I'm actually a moderate, I do understand that moderates and centrists seem to be just fine with the staus quo of adding even more onto our 36 trillion dollar national debt. Don't make waves, compromise, be nice, and let the debt just grow and grow. I understand more and more that many of those "extremist" righties are tired of no one addressing our runaway debt and are willing to be hardcore in fighting it, even if they have to burn the house down in order to do it. I'm that moderate who also wants to get our finances under control and it is about time someone gets serious about it instead of more of the same ole same ole compromising that continues to add onto the national debt.

What I found out over the years is the republicans talk a good game when it comes to the national debt, but continue to spend and spend. The democrats for the most part will tell you they don’t give an owl’s hoot about the debt. I used to say I’m a fiscal conservative and socially liberal. But being fiscal conservative, these days just means low taxes while the spending side escalates big time. Now I say I’m fiscal responsible which means I’m more than willing to raise taxes and cut spending at the same time. That outflow, spending should match incoming or revenues.

Okay, Trump this time has DOGE, but he wants to cut taxes. Now isn’t the time to cut taxes if one is fiscal responsible. The main problem is most Americans want all their benefits, programs etc. but don’t want to pay for them. Most Americans are more than happy to pass on paying for the benefits, programs, etc. that they get today onto their kids, grand kids and the yet unborn.

 

[Moderate Right]

What I found out over the years is the republicans talk a good game when it comes to the national debt, but continue to spend and spend. The democrats for the most part will tell you they don’t give an owl’s hoot about the debt. I used to say I’m a fiscal conservative and socially liberal. But being fiscal conservative, these days just means low taxes while the spending side escalates big time. Now I say I’m fiscal responsible which means I’m more than willing to raise taxes and cut spending at the same time. That outflow, spending should match incoming or revenues.

Okay, Trump this time has DOGE, but he wants to cut taxes. Now isn’t the time to cut taxes if one is fiscal responsible. The main problem is most Americans want all their benefits, programs etc. but don’t want to pay for them. Most Americans are more than happy to pass on paying for the benefits, programs, etc. that they get today onto their kids, grand kids and the yet unborn.

I was mostly referring to politicians on the so-called far right who are called extremists when they just want to actually be fiscally responsible and are even willing to take on Trump and everyone else in order to do it.

 

[Hip octogenarian]

"Fascist" shouldn't be on the list. Fascism is on the far right of the political spectrum.

 

[NuffSaid]

Democracy in the US is alive and well. Our last election proved that.

What Trump is dismantling is not democracy. It is the control of the Globalists and, to a lesser extent (right now), the hold on our government by those who support the Globalists.

MAGA was against democracy in 2020.

 

[choiceone]

I think a core difference is when it comes to spending and the national debt. While I'm actually a moderate, I do understand that moderates and centrists seem to be just fine with the staus quo of adding even more onto our 36 trillion dollar national debt. Don't make waves, compromise, be nice, and let the debt just grow and grow. I understand more and more that many of those "extremist" righties are tired of no one addressing our runaway debt and are willing to be hardcore in fighting it, even if they have to burn the house down in order to do it. I'm that moderate who also wants to get our finances under control and it is about time someone gets serious about it instead of more of the same ole same ole compromising that continues to add onto the national debt.

I don't go for this. When Republicans are in charge, they spend lots and try to cut the taxes of the rich significantly, underfund the IRS, which requires more funds to find tax fraud of much wealthier people, and refuse to close tax loopholes for the latter. This ends up creating more debt.

When Democrats are in charge, Republicans then spend tremendous amounts of time screaming about the debt, which they themselves ran up, and how we can't afford the social safety net, but don't do anything about the extreme military spending and tax loopholes of the rich, etc. If Democrats call for focusing on collecting on the tax fraud of the rich and closing their tax loopholes, the Republicans yell and scream that Democrats are the big spenders.

Frankly, at this point, we need a serious wealth tax, not a mere increase in income taxes of rich corporations and people, because the extremes of wealth and poverty hollow out the middle and threaten healthy democratic functioning.

We should have accepted the Biden-term IRS funding increase aimed at finding and prosecuting the tax fraud of the wealthy, and also closed the tax loopholes. We should avoid war, streamline military spending, and root out waste, fraud, and abuse as was done in the Clinton era when Clinton's VP, Gore, worked on that problem successfully.

But it is ridiculous to suppose that programs for the social safety net, which takes up way less of the budget than some other parts, Social Security excepted, should just be junked. Trump has done so far been very careless about his firings and cuts to programs, which may end up costing us more.

So that's how I see it - the Republicans want to help the rich, don't care whether or not they make sick people sicker or disabled people die or have poor people evicted from their homes, spend money like water on things like the military and war, which destroy the fruits of labor. The Democrats clean up afterwards, not so much as to play Robin Hood, but to make ordinary peoples' lives safer while letting the rich be prosperous, too. And the Dems do cut the deficit - in Biden's term, it was just really hard to do so quickly because of COVID, which wasn't his fault, as it arose under Trump.

I'd probably prefer democratic socialism, especially after the housing crises, including the current one. Many wealthy real estate corporations don't care if they make 50% of the nation homeless, they want "money, money, money" for poorer and poorer service. If they can't do better, there should be a government takeover.

 

[choiceone]

Most of the old southern democrats remained loyal to the democratic party although a few did indeed become republicans. Here’s Pew research party affiliation 1939-2014

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/feature/party-id-trend/

And Gallup picking it up from there.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

This surprises me because the old Southern states were all reliably Democratic before Richard Nixon used his Republican Southern strategy to pick up disaffected Democratic votes in those states. By 1980, all those same states proved in elections to be reliably Republican.

 

[choiceone]

I was mostly referring to politicians on the so-called far right who are called extremists when they just want to actually be fiscally responsible and are even willing to take on Trump and everyone else in order to do it.

Please name the Republicans who are willing to take on Trump. I don't see them. The Congressional GOP are shaking in their boots about saying anything against Trump, because he takes revenge on anyone who crosses him, however minimal or necessary their objection.

 

[roguenuke]

Most of the old southern democrats remained loyal to the democratic party although a few did indeed become republicans. Here’s Pew research party affiliation 1939-2014

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/feature/party-id-trend/

And Gallup picking it up from there.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

The issue with these graphs, this research is that it doesn't actually show what is being claimed, that those people remained loyal to their party affiliation. We can't know that without actually asking that specific question, rather than taking polls and comparing, as these seem to do. People moved into those parts of the country who were Dems, like my mom's family. Heck, NC saw an influx of people from outside the South with the tech jobs increasing. Then you get different people voting for those Dems, even while many of the older Dems may and likely very much are switching parties or votes. The graph shows only that there is a gradual decline, rather than whether it is because of new voters or those old ones switching parties.

My grandparents were almost certainly Southern Democrats of the supporting segregation variety. They definitely supported reagan and opposed Clinton. They did not remain loyal to the Democratic Party.

 

[Perotista]

This surprises me because the old Southern states were all reliably Democratic before Richard Nixon used his Republican Southern strategy to pick up disaffected Democratic votes in those states. By 1980, all those same states proved in elections to be reliably Republican.

Using my home state of Georgia as an example, let it be known we didn’t elect our first republican governor ever until 2002 and didn’t have a republican controlled state legislature until 2004. And as late as 1993 Newt Gingrich was our only republican congressman first elected in 1980 with all others being democrats. Most don’t look at the local and state level. Now presidential wise, we have voted republican more times recently than democratic. Goldwater in 1964 was the first republican presidential candidate we voted for as previously it had been all democrats. Then Nixon in 1972, Reagan in 1984, G.H.W. Bush in 1988. Bill Clinton in 1992 and then republican until 2020 when we voted for Biden.

Other southern states will differ some, but it wasn’t because of the old guard southern democrats becoming republicans. It was their offspring. Prior to 1980 only Goldwater and Nixon were the only republicans to win Georgia. But state government wise, everything else was strictly democrat controlled until 2002. Until 1994 we were electing democrats to congress. Both Georgia senators were democratic until Mack Mattingly won in 1980 to become the first republican senator in Georgia’s history. He didn’t last long only one term. 2002 seems to be the watershed year. That was when we finally had two republican senators for the first time ever. Which continued until 2020 when we elected two democratic senators. The old southern democrats stayed in charge until they died away. No switching parties except for a couple.

 

[choiceone]

Using my home state of Georgia as an example, let it be known we didn’t elect our first republican governor ever until 2002 and didn’t have a republican controlled state legislature until 2004. And as late as 1993 Newt Gingrich was our only republican congressman first elected in 1980 with all others being democrats. Most don’t look at the local and state level. Now presidential wise, we have voted republican more times recently than democratic. Goldwater in 1964 was the first republican presidential candidate we voted for as previously it had been all democrats. Then Nixon in 1972, Reagan in 1984, G.H.W. Bush in 1988. Bill Clinton in 1992 and then republican until 2020 when we voted for Biden.

Other southern states will differ some, but it wasn’t because of the old guard southern democrats becoming republicans. It was their offspring. Prior to 1980 only Goldwater and Nixon were the only republicans to win Georgia. But state government wise, everything else was strictly democrat controlled until 2002. Until 1994 we were electing democrats to congress. Both Georgia senators were democratic until Mack Mattingly won in 1980 to become the first republican senator in Georgia’s history. He didn’t last long only one term. 2002 seems to be the watershed year. That was when we finally had two republican senators for the first time ever. Which continued until 2020 when we elected two democratic senators. The old southern democrats stayed in charge until they died away. No switching parties except for a couple.

Well, this certainly could be true. On the other hand, it's not exactly clear whether the old Southern Democrats stayed in at the state level or new younger people moved in who took the place of that old guard in the Democratic Party, while at least some of that old guard went for Republicans.

In any case, people who were voting for Goldwater, Nixon, and Reagan were certainly voting Republican. Goldwater wanted to nuke Vietnam, Nixon used his Republican Southern strategy to get segregationist votes, and Reagan made a pact with the Moral Majority people (I think that's what they were called back then) to have an anti-abortion plank in the party platform if they would bring in their anti-abortion Christian vote.

So I guess we can call the people voting for those guys for president presidential Republicans and state Democrats . . . .

 

[Perotista]

Well, this certainly could be true. On the other hand, it's not exactly clear whether the old Southern Democrats stayed in at the state level or new younger people moved in who took the place of that old guard in the Democratic Party, while at least some of that old guard went for Republicans.

In any case, people who were voting for Goldwater, Nixon, and Reagan were certainly voting Republican. Goldwater wanted to nuke Vietnam, Nixon used his Republican Southern strategy to get segregationist votes, and Reagan made a pact with the Moral Majority people (I think that's what they were called back then) to have an anti-abortion plank in the party platform if they would bring in their anti-abortion Christian vote.

So I guess we can call the people voting for those guys for president presidential Republicans and state Democrats . . . .

I suppose you could call them that. Most of the old yeller dog democrats from the 1960’s and 70’s as I knew them remained loyal democrats until they died. They counted for control in congress. Without them it’s highly doubtful the Democrats would have controlled the house for 40 straight years until 1994 and 58 out of 62 years and the senate for 52 of 62 years going back to 1932.

I would say the younger ones during the Reagan years became republicans whereas their daddy’s and grandparents remained democrats. The older ones voting democratic state and local while those just being able to vote for the first time began voting republican. Interesting citing Reagan was when the democratic party dropped from an average of 45% from FDR to Ronnie of the electorate down to 35% while the GOP rose from an average of 25% up to 30%. The loss of the old reliable conservative democratic voters to voting republican as the democratic party was purging themselves of their conservatives in favor of the more liberal. Of course, the reverse was true, the republican party getting rid of their old Rockefeller liberal republicans of the northeast.

Trends in Party Identification, 1939-2014

For more than 70 years, with few exceptions, more Americans have identified as Democrats than Republicans. But the share of independents, which surpassed the percentages of either Democrats or Republicans several years ago, continues to increase. Currently, 39% Americans identify as...

www.pewresearch.org

Hard for anyone today to realize that once the south was solid democratic while the northeast was republican territory. But it was normal for us to continue to elect conservative democrats as governor, congress, the senate, locally after Reagan. That was until Roy Barnes, an Atlanta liberal democrat changed everything. Him being elected in 1998 and defeated in 2002 with our first ever republican governor, Sonny Perdue. There were more democrat in Georgia until Barnes which caused the republican party to become the majority party while he was governor and the switch from democratic to republican state legislature and on down the chain.

 

[Perotista]

Well, this certainly could be true. On the other hand, it's not exactly clear whether the old Southern Democrats stayed in at the state level or new younger people moved in who took the place of that old guard in the Democratic Party, while at least some of that old guard went for Republicans.

In any case, people who were voting for Goldwater, Nixon, and Reagan were certainly voting Republican. Goldwater wanted to nuke Vietnam, Nixon used his Republican Southern strategy to get segregationist votes, and Reagan made a pact with the Moral Majority people (I think that's what they were called back then) to have an anti-abortion plank in the party platform if they would bring in their anti-abortion Christian vote.

So I guess we can call the people voting for those guys for president presidential Republicans and state Democrats . . . .

Speaking of the south going from democratic to republican and the northeast going from republican to democratic. This may interest you.

Trends on the movement of States: Blue to Red or Red to Blue

There has been movement from 2000-2024 for the states from red to blue or blue to red. Below is the movement based on PVI, Partisan Voting Index along with their number of electoral votes for the 2024 presidential election. I only included swing states, no solid red or blue states.

Arizona from an R+6 down to an R+2. Moving blue. 11 electoral votes

Florida from R+1 to a R+3 getting slightly redder. 30 electoral votes

Georgia from a R+10 down to an R+3 Moving blue 16 electoral votes

Michigan from a D+6 to a R+1 Moving Red 15 electoral votes

Minnesota from a D+10 down to a D+1 moving Red 10 electoral votes

Nevada from D+3 to R+1 Moving Red 6 electoral votes

North Carolina from an R+9 down to a R+3 moving blue 16 electoral votes

Ohio From an R+4 up to an R+6 Becoming more red 17 electoral votes

Pennsylvania from D+4 to R+2 moving red 19 electoral votes

Texas from an R+10 down to an R+5 moving blue 40 electoral votes

Wisconsin from a D+10 to a R+2 moving red 10 electoral votes

Cook Partisan Voting Index - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Interesting to note some southern states trending blue, Georgia, North Carolina and Texas with Florida being the exception as it is trending redder. States from the Midwest, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin are turning red with Ohio getting redder. Out west Nevada is trending red while Arizona is trending blue.

 

[Parker_Chess]

Those countries have more robust social programs because they have the US pay for their defense, putting us 36 trillion dollars in debt while the money they save from not having to pay for their defense they put on their social programs. Let them pay for their own defense.

We do spend too much on the military. But that's not to say it doesn't come with its benefits. We are the most powerful country in the world despite having a lower population than China and India. The U.S. is practically impossible to invade or wage war against. We have soft power around the world. Why not have the strongest military in the world in addition to robust social programs? If we're truly the envy of the world we should have the best of everything.