• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

This is not a bad summary of left versus right

That masks the real issue. The fundamental issue for society is freedom for the many versus plutocracy/authoritarianism. Democracy offers power to the people, letting them pick a government that serves them; an 'elite' class who want great power and wealth are at war with democracy; and this claim that 'government does more harm than good' is promoted by them disingenuously to get people to ag

But at some point somebody has to care about the issues. I’m appalled that states are passing blatantly unconstitutional legislation that is aimed at 2 transgendered athletes, and that’s a result of tribalism. It’s not polarization- Americans are moderate as hell - it’s they aren’t allowed to vote for anyone other than the geriotracy’s chosen ones. The left tried to choose Bernie Sanders and the people were told “no, we overrule you.” I voted for al Franken, where did he go? Oh he was strong armed into resigning without a hearing? Oops! There goes my votes!

Disenfranchise a few million more Black people and pretend student debt was taken care of while the Republican minority retains a right to veto anything except one bill per year because one state voted for yet another tyrant but there’s a d after her name. Calling this democracy masks the real issue. Matt gaetz and boebert and McConnell are obviously the worst human beings in the country, that’s clear. But we do need to actually fix democracy before defining what each “side” stands for.
 
For one there was a bigger support among the GOP for civil rights than among democrats.

Not at all. What an odd thing to say. In fact, Nixon was successfully able to use LBJ’s pursuit of civil rights, especially the passage of the Voting Rights Act, to take the south from the Dems.

Here is Nixon’s chief campaign advisor and one of the architects of his successful “southern strategy”, Kevin Phillips, to explain how this worked in 1970:

“ From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.”
 
But at some point somebody has to care about the issues. I’m appalled that states are passing blatantly unconstitutional legislation that is aimed at 2 transgendered athletes, and that’s a result of tribalism. It’s not polarization- Americans are moderate as hell - it’s they aren’t allowed to vote for anyone other than the geriotracy’s chosen ones. The left tried to choose Bernie Sanders and the people were told “no, we overrule you.” I voted for al Franken, where did he go? Oh he was strong armed into resigning without a hearing? Oops! There goes my votes!

Disenfranchise a few million more Black people and pretend student debt was taken care of while the Republican minority retains a right to veto anything except one bill per year because one state voted for yet another tyrant but there’s a d after her name. Calling this democracy masks the real issue. Matt gaetz and boebert and McConnell are obviously the worst human beings in the country, that’s clear. But we do need to actually fix democracy before defining what each “side” stands for.

Except remember I said that masks the issue? The reason legislation that is unconstitutional and panders to tribalism is being passed is because powerful wealthy interests are funding political manipulations to get votes to get power for a corrupt agenda. Only looking at the tribalism masks the bigger issue.

What do you mean 'fix democracy'? What's behind what's broken is that there's a powerful machine serving those interests breaking it, manipulating the system and manipulating voters to elect enough of those Republicans who block everything. The main option for a fix I know is simply to get tax increases on the rich passed which reduce the fuel they have for that machine attacking democracy. What other option?
 
Except remember I said that masks the issue? The reason legislation that is unconstitutional and panders to tribalism is being passed is because powerful wealthy interests are funding political manipulations to get votes to get power for a corrupt agenda. Only looking at the tribalism masks the bigger issue.

What do you mean 'fix democracy'? What's behind what's broken is that there's a powerful machine serving those interests breaking it, manipulating the system and manipulating voters to elect enough of those Republicans who block everything. The main option for a fix I know is simply to get tax increases on the rich passed which reduce the fuel they have for that machine attacking democracy. What other option?
My suggestion is for the left to embrace a younger platform focused on grassroots efforts and appealing to the populist nature of a Democratic socialist platform. There’s nothing socialist about it, it’s very measured. Rural America needs a safety net in place, protection from special interests and services such as universal healthcare and progressive taxation more than anyone. Hell yes easier said than done but clinging to the neoliberal order is not sustainable

Whether or not it’s possible it is true that the Democrats have given up on rural America, their messaging sucks and their candidates suck and the leaders are out of touch.
 
My suggestion is for the left to embrace a younger platform focused on grassroots efforts and appealing to the populist nature of a Democratic socialist platform. There’s nothing socialist about it, it’s very measured. Rural America needs a safety net in place, protection from special interests and services such as universal healthcare and progressive taxation more than anyone. Hell yes easier said than done but clinging to the neoliberal order is not sustainable

Whether or not it’s possible it is true that the Democrats have given up on rural America, their messaging sucks and their candidates suck and the leaders are out of touch.

#1 thing they need to fix in their messaging is to stop using the word "socialism".

What they need is some middle-aged guy from rural America, maybe with a little bit of a southern twang, sitting in his pick up truck, with a shotgun on the side seat, maybe with a tattoo of a cross on his arm, talking to them about the issues which matter to them: healthcare, farm subsidies, jobs, etc... and how the dems have helped with all those things.
 
My suggestion is for the left to embrace a younger platform focused on grassroots efforts and appealing to the populist nature of a Democratic socialist platform. There’s nothing socialist about it, it’s very measured. Rural America needs a safety net in place, protection from special interests and services such as universal healthcare and progressive taxation more than anyone. Hell yes easier said than done but clinging to the neoliberal order is not sustainable

But do see my thread that the volume of the message has more effect than the content. So that 'good' Democratic message can have a problem getting votes. That's why I talked about reducing the fuel for the political machine of the right by increasing their taxes.

Whether or not it’s possible it is true that the Democrats have given up on rural America, their messaging sucks and their candidates suck and the leaders are out of touch.

Republicans made an effective move to focus on low-population areas, recognizing their cheaper media and inflated voting power (is it easier to buy two Senate seats in California or Wyoming), a right-wing message seems to resonate more with rural America. It can be argued Democrats should do better trying to win their votes; or that they're correctly using limited resources to focus on cities/suburbs, I'm not sure.
 
Left: The strong should protect the weak

Right: the strong should exploit the weak
No, but the OP is an excellent example of a much more accurate description.

Conservatives think liberals are people with bad ideas. Liberals think conservatives are bad people with ideas.
 
It's actually really bad.

It's more like:

Left: The weak should stay weak, and vote for me because I will force the strong to give them free shit.

Right: The weak should stop being weak, and then they won't need anyone to give them free shit.
Correction
Left: we’ll help organize the weak to try to challenge whatever systems keep them down.
Right: we’ll make sure the weak stay that way
 
Left: The strong should protect the weak

Right: the strong should exploit the weak
But it's a lie! (or it's the Propaganda they want the Sheep to believe)
Left: Use the Poor as a vehicle to steal money from People who take care of themselves, and are successful(Taxes), and throw scraps to the poor!
Right: Allow People to succeed to the best of their ability, and allow them to choose how/who to help as the see fit!
 

Attachments

  • SocialisPlaybook.jpg
    SocialisPlaybook.jpg
    68.5 KB · Views: 0
  • thomas-sowell-LibsSlave.jpg
    thomas-sowell-LibsSlave.jpg
    63.5 KB · Views: 0
  • TS_GreedTax.jpg
    TS_GreedTax.jpg
    18.9 KB · Views: 0
#1 thing they need to fix in their messaging is to stop using the word "socialism".

What they need is some middle-aged guy from rural America, maybe with a little bit of a southern twang, sitting in his pick up truck, with a shotgun on the side seat, maybe with a tattoo of a cross on his arm, talking to them about the issues which matter to them: healthcare, farm subsidies, jobs, etc... and how the dems have helped with all those things.
It's not just an image thing. We've just seen that a New York billionaire *****-grabber who openly admires Putin and "falls in love" with communist dictators can gain unshakeable cultish devotion simply by throwing out some white grievance rhetoric and racially insensitive remarks. Sad as it may be, it seems that most people need an enemy to be fighting against and for many Americans currently the... let's say the most visible incongruences against their subconscious perception of America as a great country are black people in the White House and the decline of white dominance.

I liked how you put it the other day more: "Bernie needs to sit behind a pickup truck with a shotgun in hand and tell people he wants to protect the every day American against big corporations." Our dear friend Mycroft is constantly railing against the 'globalists.' Even Trump had his 'drain the swamp' rhetoric and his stark contrast against the polish of 'establishment' politicians which no doubt fooled some people into thinking he would turn things around. On the other hand, the 'politics of envy' and 'class warfare' rhetoric are simplistic and powerful tools for the right-wing: So left-wing and centrist messaging really needs to constantly emphasize how deeply and persistently the billionaires and mega-corporations are assaulting workers' rights, public infrastructure and institutions, democratic governance and the very living world on which human civilization depends. The messaging should be one of finally fighting back... ultimately and quite literally fighting for our survival.

Of course that's an approach which would leave the majority of Democrat politicians behind along with the Republicans; so even if it were the best chance for broader and more dedicated popular support, more likely there'll just be more tepid, placating messaging and focus on the approved cultural wedge issues.
 
Last edited:
Left: The strong should protect the weak

Right: the strong should exploit the weak

left- fight for rights and well being of everybody

Right- fight for rights and only their well being and to hell with everybody else

or even more simple

Left- Has empathy
Right- has no empathy
 
Nah- from civil rights and Medicare to the ACA, the Dems have done some good.

What has the GOP done other than cut taxes to the rich and make it harder to vote for poor and elderly?
nothing, for decades. They scapegoat and blame while they block everything. That's all they do. I can't believe idiot voters continue to vote for them

See what they have done on the state level, all the issues facing this country, crime, inflation, pandemic, etc et c etc and what do they pass laws on? Making it harder to vote, banning abortion, banning transgenders in sports, banning books in schools, targeting homosexuals. Not a single damn thing to address any actual issues or help the people. And yet they will likely get control yet again to **** the country up even further, thanks to absolute morons that vote republican

Yes, Ataraxia, I do believe the Democrats have done more to help the weak than the Republicans.

I wish the Republicans would get away from this "tough love" strategy, where they (sincerely) feel that they are helping the weak by doing nothing and thereby forcing them to try harder.

But the problem with "tough love" is that, when you put it next to the "I don't give a rat's rear-end" attitude, they look the same.
Even the tough love crap is a crock of shit, it is more like tough love for everybody else but not for them and their kind. Government should help them and nobody else. It's like everything about republicans, pure hypocrisy and selfishness
 
Left: The strong should protect the weak

Right: the strong should exploit the weak
A far left extreme partisan trying to tell people what the views of the right are. How funny.

And I suppose we should take Tucker Carlsons views on what the left thinks as the truth too right.
 
It's actually really bad.

It's more like:

Left: The weak should stay weak, and vote for me because I will force the strong to give them free shit.

Right: The weak should stop being weak, and then they won't need anyone to give them free shit.
Of cours,e like every other right wing bullshit, complete fiction. some of the weakest, most pathetic people out there, are republican base. Overweight, very poor, drug addiction running rampant, drain on healthcare, don't have good paying jobs, crumbling small towns. But of course, to them, their problems are all the blame of people of color, immigrants and liberals.
 
All the arguments against one party or the other are valid, but the issue is that the biggest problem is the parties et-al, and how they interact (or don't); The 2 parties we have, and their structural methodology, are what needs to go.
 
That's not really relevant to the politics. Chris Christie is large; Matt Gaetz isn't; they're similar scumbags.
I wasn't implying simply being overweight makes you weak, it was just one in many descriptors. And overweitght people are going to be more unhealthy and obesity and poor health are rampant in red states. The fact remains, some of the weakest people are republican voters, the people who need help the most, yet they vote for people that argue the weak should just magically pick themselves up against a corrupt system with limited opportunities to do so.

it does speak to typical republican mindset, rules for them, not for me. They should pick themselves up by the bootstraps, the government should help me. Jsut like with the coal miners in WV and trump. hillary offered job retraining, but they wanted their jobs back so voted Trump. that is the selfish mindset. Oh, government can't help these people, but they better keep my jobs here.
 
#1 thing they need to fix in their messaging is to stop using the word "socialism".

What they need is some middle-aged guy from rural America, maybe with a little bit of a southern twang, sitting in his pick up truck, with a shotgun on the side seat, maybe with a tattoo of a cross on his arm, talking to them about the issues which matter to them: healthcare, farm subsidies, jobs, etc... and how the dems have helped with all those things.

I agree, it's not even socialism. I don't know why Bernie would use the word. Republicans don't call themselves authoritarians. But they pass laws saying nobody can choose their own gender. They're not authoritarians, so it's ok, they like small government.

I am agreeing with you. It might not sound like it, but I seriously think they should change the name of the parties to the Bills and the Bengals. Best idea ever.
 
I wasn't implying simply being overweight makes you weak, it was just one in many descriptors. And overweitght people are going to be more unhealthy and obesity and poor health are rampant in red states. The fact remains, some of the weakest people are republican voters, the people who need help the most, yet they vote for people that argue the weak should just magically pick themselves up against a corrupt system with limited opportunities to do so.

But we should not fall into what some people do - 'that guy is a creepy, corrupt, lying, fat jerk'. Wait, what does fat have to do with it? But it gets thrown around like that as an insult - "one in many descriptors" but equated with the others as 'bad' reflecting bad politics or morals etc. We should leave 'fat' out of such a topic. There's room to discuss weight separately if needed like a public health topic.
 
I agree, it's not even socialism. I don't know why Bernie would use the word.

It seems like his biggest political mistake, in a way; near as I can tell it has to do with his background where he opposed the extreme demonization of 'socialists' and right-wing championing of 'anti-communism' that was corruption and human rights abuses and tyranny etc. On the other hand, his defense of the word has done more to help reduce its demonization than anything in history I know of. But you're right, he isn't advocating socialism., but democracy.
 
Left: The strong should protect the weak

Right: the strong should exploit the weak
Lol. Every one of your OP's can be distilled down to a single thought: The left is good and the right is evil.
There. Now you dont need to create any more threads here. We know what you think.
 
I agree, it's not even socialism. I don't know why Bernie would use the word.
Three broad possibilities would be that
- he's ignorant, not understanding it's the wrong word to use,
- he's dishonest, thinking that calling himself socialist would boost his polling, or
- he's honest, and is personally a democratic socialist even though his policy proposals as an elected representative are centrist/social democrat.

I suspect it's a mix of all three; I gather he's even incorrectly described the Scandinavian countries as socialist at times.
 
Three broad possibilities would be that
- he's ignorant, not understanding it's the wrong word to use,
- he's dishonest, thinking that calling himself socialist would boost his polling, or
- he's honest, and is personally a democratic socialist even though his policy proposals as an elected representative are centrist/social democrat.

You missed the obvious answer. He doesn't know about the Bull Moose party. They're words. Take my idea, two parties: the Bills and the Bengals. What's the difference? People would have to learn what people actually think, instead of guessing incorrectly. I mean it's cool the way it is except 2/3 people disagree with the entire GOP platform. No problem.
 
FFS, more nonsense from the Bernie Sanders cancel culture fan club.

This entire thread is nothing more than a giant bundle of fraud.
 
Back
Top Bottom