A Republican versus Democrat fight in the open

[Luckyone]

Here is a video of a Republican versus Democrat fight. Mind you, there is no difference in the physical appearance of the parties involved but there is a fight nonetheless.

Can you determine who is the Democrat and who is the Republican?

This shows how ridiculous these types of fights are. They accomplish absolutely nothing

Mike Shine

 

[Fletch]

Here is a video of a Republican versus Democrat fight. Mind you, there is no difference in the physical appearance of the parties involved but there is a fight nonetheless.

Can you determine who is the Democrat and who is the Republican?

This shows how ridiculous these types of fights are. They accomplish absolutely nothing

Mike Shine

Its clear the republican landed more punches and easily won the fight.

 

[Luckyone]

Its clear the republican landed more punches and easily won the fight.

Enjoy the fights

 

[Aberro]

That was funny!
Thanks for posting.

 

[Taylor]

The Democrat was the one trying to steal the carrot that the other rabbit worked hard to earn.

 

[ataraxia]

Its clear the republican landed more punches and easily won the fight.

At least that’s what they told him on Fox News.

 

[Craig234]

I think this is wrongheaded. What it's saying is, it makes no difference whether we have policies for healthcare or not, policies for education or no education, traffic laws or no traffic laws, war or not war. Politics don't matter.

And that is about as imbecilic and dangerous an argument as there is. The point isn't that SOME political arguing isn't as pointless as the video, but criticize THAT, not simply all political issues.

 

[Fletch]

At least that’s what they told him on Fox News.

CNN called it a racist attack.

 

[ataraxia]

CNN called it a racist attack.

Fox called it an attack by an illegal immigrant.

 

[Luckyone]

I think this is wrongheaded. What it's saying is, it makes no difference whether we have policies for healthcare or not, policies for education or no education, traffic laws or no traffic laws, war or not war. Politics don't matter.

And that is about as imbecilic and dangerous an argument as there is. The point isn't that SOME political arguing isn't as pointless as the video, but criticize THAT, not simply all political issues.

Though I can see and understand your view, the reality is that we have more in common than not. We all are patriots, we all want the best for our children, for our families, for our neighbors, we want health care and income and opportunity, and living conditions. The only difference is that we disagree on how to accomplish it.

I have stated here many times that I have never voted before and the reason for my not voting has always been the same. I have not felt that any candidate (Republican or Democrat) was so good or so bad that it was a must to vote..............at least not until Trump showed up. Yes, some candidates were better than others and some candidates would accomplish what was important to us or vex something that was important to us but life (and ZEN buddhism that I studied when young) made me realize that there is one universal law and that is "things will change". When things are great they will turn negative and when things are bad, they will turn positive at some point. As long as the person in charge had one of these qualities (ethics, morals, principles or humanity) things would never get so bad they would change for a long time or permanently as one of those 4 qualities would prevent that. As such, all the candidates that came through during my voting life, each had at least one of them. For example, Hillary had humanity and Bush Jr had principles). They were not good candidates but no long-term damage to the country would happen under their watch.

This is the reason why my OP is not what you say it is. Yes, one candidate may be better than the other and vice versa but the fact is that fighting among us to the end so that one side or the other wins totally is wrong. Compromise among us is the way to go even though we will have 4 or 8 years of some pain and suffering if the candidate we want does not win. It is a small period of time and things will change thereafter.

With Trump, it is different because he has none of those qualities and the changes he brings will be long term and maybe even permanent. He brings out the worst of us in every way (not just in a few ways) and that will turn us all into the worst of us and when that happens, killing, marring, hurting and destroying our opposites is the only solution. Simply stated, under Trump a civil war is likely to occur at some point and even after he leaves because he leaves us wanting all of it and not just some of it.

We need to realize that we are more alike than different and what is making us different totally is Trump and not ourselves. He does not bring out a bit of the bad and a bit of the good in us that prevents us from going to extremes but brings out the extreme worst of us and NONE of the good in us. That will destroy all of us ultimately

 

[Craig234]

Though I can see and understand your view, the reality is that we have more in common than not. We all are patriots, we all want the best for our children, for our families, for our neighbors, we want health care and income and opportunity, and living conditions. The only difference is that we disagree on how to accomplish it.

I have stated here many times that I have never voted before and the reason for my not voting has always been the same. I have not felt that any candidate (Republican or Democrat) was so good or so bad that it was a must to vote..............at least not until Trump showed up. Yes, some candidates were better than others and some candidates would accomplish what was important to us or vex something that was important to us but life (and ZEN buddhism that I studied when young) made me realize that there is one universal law and that is "things will change". When things are great they will turn negative and when things are bad, they will turn positive at some point. As long as the person in charge had one of these qualities (ethics, morals, principles or humanity) things would never get so bad they would change for a long time or permanently as one of those 4 qualities would prevent that. As such, all the candidates that came through during my voting life, each had at least one of them. For example, Hillary had humanity and Bush Jr had principles). They were not good candidates but no long-term damage to the country would happen under their watch.

This is the reason why my OP is not what you say it is. Yes, one candidate may be better than the other and vice versa but the fact is that fighting among us to the end so that one side or the other wins totally is wrong. Compromise among us is the way to go even though we will have 4 or 8 years of some pain and suffering if the candidate we want does not win. It is a small period of time and things will change thereafter.

With Trump, it is different because he has none of those qualities and the changes he brings will be long term and maybe even permanent. He brings out the worst of us in every way (not just in a few ways) and that will turn us all into the worst of us and when that happens, killing, marring, hurting and destroying our opposites is the only solution. Simply stated, under Trump a civil war is likely to occur at some point and even after he leaves because he leaves us wanting all of it and not just some of it.

We need to realize that we are more alike than different and what is making us different totally is Trump and not ourselves. He does not bring out a bit of the bad and a bit of the good in us that prevents us from going to extremes but brings out the extreme worst of us and NONE of the good in us. That will destroy all of us ultimately

You are knowledgable in investments. So, imagine someone posting to you that stock names beginning with A-K are bad investments, and ones beginning L-Z are good investments, but really, they go up and down so investing just isn't worth doing.

How would you react to that? That's how I'm reacting, almost, to your political comments. Hillary did NOT have humanity. Bush was effectively entirely devoid of principles, though there are a handful of times he showed a tiny bit. And those are not the issues, your whole paradigm of politics, which is really more about people fighting for better policies, is wrong.

Recognizing that people have some common interests is fine - though it's also important to recognize when a third of the country is badly brainwashed into having delusions about those interests. When they are manipulated. Understanding the role of wealthy interests and opinion manipulation machines is important.

To talk just about 'people sharing common interests' is about as simplistic as saying that all company executives only think of helping the small shareholders and public good with no thought of their own compensation or other interests. A bad misunderstanding. trump is a disaster. He's not the problem.

There is actually little difference between Bush and trump in qualification or character. It's mainly a difference in personal style, most notably trump's narcissism Bush did not have. But Bush ruthlessly pursued corrupt, dishonest policies as a sociopath that harmed millions and didn't bat an eye. He deserved your opposition.

To even start to get to your 'we have more in common' idea needs to start to learn how that third of the country has been manipulated, and why they are so unable to share that view. Democrats generally DO care about the well-being of all Americans; Republicans generally are against the well-being of much of the country. And that's not an accident, it's the result of corrupt interests having great influence.

 

[Luckyone]

You are knowledgable in investments. So, imagine someone posting to you that stock names beginning with A-K are bad investments, and ones beginning L-Z are good investments, but really, they go up and down so investing just isn't worth doing.



To even start to get to your 'we have more in common' idea needs to start to learn how that third of the country has been manipulated, and why they are so unable to share that view. Democrats generally DO care about the well-being of all Americans; Republicans generally are against the well-being of much of the country. And that's not an accident, it's the result of corrupt interests having great influence.

In this post of yours you are saying the same thing as before but also saying some of what I said as well, though in reality you are making my whole point.

Let me start by saying something we are both saying and that is that Trump is the worst. I totally agree and we need to steadfastedly get him out. Nonetheless, this is not not so much about Democrats and Republicans in genera, it is about Trumpers versus everyone else on both parties. This is proven by the fact that among the Republicans there are the Never Trumpers (Lincoln Group). Here it is clearly shown that this is not about Republicans versus Democrats but about good versus evil. Yes, this is under the guise of parties against each other but it is more about people following the ideals of one man (not one party) versus the rest of us.

As far as Hillary having humanity, she did have that. She fought her whole life for helping women and children. She had a lot of bad things but that was one good thing that stood out. Yes, Bush was corrupt and also had a strong inability to do what was intelligent and right but when we were attacked on 9/11 he moved heaven and earth to fix the country. This clearly shows that both of these people had "something" that would prevent the worst from happening. Hillary would not allow bad things to happen to women and children and Bush would defend the nation against our enemies. Trump has none of that. There is not one single group of people (not even his base) that he would not change his loyalty if it helped him personally. There is not one single thing that Trump has fought for in his life to defend other than himself.

Getting back to the OP, under Trump both sides are losing their moral, ethical, principled and humane compass. Both parties seem to be going to the extremes to accomplish what they want. There doesn't seem to be a "limit" to where they will go. I can certainly understand that on the Democratic side because we are fighting evil and there is no compromise possible with the devil. The only thing the Devil will compromise with is "when you give your soul to him".

Nonetheless, the fact remains that simply talking about party platforms (not about Trump), there is always going to be differences of opinion and way to do things. That will never change. Nonetheless, that has always been the case in the world and in the past those differences could be compromised into an agreement where both sides got some of what they wanted and gave up something they wanted as well. Republicans and Democrats in the past were able to work together in some ways so that things didn't turn impossible where only one way or the other was the ONLY choice.

My whole OP is about people realizing that we are heading for disaster (not just some pain) and that each of us has the ability to go back to disagreeing without trying to erase the other side from the face of the earth. Trump is the person (not the party) that is stimulating both sides to go to the EXTREMES.

You and I are not disagreeing on what is happening but you are actually proving my point because you are going to the "extreme" against the Republican party and that is exactly what Trump (the man and not the party) is causing you to do. I feel identically the same as you do but my mind also shows me that the problem is the man and not in general the party. Parties have not really changed all that much but because of Trump, the people in the parties have..............they have been taken to the extreme of their thoughts and feelings. We want the other side gone/dead/erased from the earth. That is just not right as thinking that way puts each of us into the same category that we are criticizing with every fiber in our body.

 

[Craig234]

In this post of yours you are saying the same thing as before but also saying some of what I said as well, though in reality you are making my whole point.

We agree about trump, but I'm not making your other point.

Let me start by saying something we are both saying and that is that Trump is the worst. I totally agree and we need to steadfastedly get him out. Nonetheless, this is not not so much about Democrats and Republicans in genera, it is about Trumpers versus everyone else on both parties. This is proven by the fact that among the Republicans there are the Never Trumpers (Lincoln Group). Here it is clearly shown that this is not about Republicans versus Democrats but about good versus evil. Yes, this is under the guise of parties against each other but it is more about people following the ideals of one man (not one party) versus the rest of us.

You're wanting to paint Republicans as largely an ok, reasonable second of two parties, while just the pro-trump part is an issue, but in fact, trump has a record high support from the party, around 90% his whole presidency. Even much of the 10% seems to simply be people who have their own loyalties at odds with trump being loyal to himself, and Bush loyalists. There are very few crumbs for your argument about the Republicans. Some, but few.

The issues are a lot broader than trump also. There are a lot more similarities than you might like to recognize with the Bush election, and even the Reagan election, and arguably even the Goldwater nomination. But was an incompetent who pandered to the far right and served the plutocrats - a hell of a lot like trump without the narcissism and less bigotry (except, e.g., gays). His supporters had a similar mentality to the trump cult. Bush's crime were all just fine with them.

As far as Hillary having humanity, she did have that. She fought her whole life for helping women and children. She had a lot of bad things but that was one good thing that stood out.

There's a distinction to made here between calculated support for groups, and 'humanitarianism'. One politician might give passionate speeches for the poor because he sees that as the road to power, while he cares nothing for them in private, and another will give passionate speeches for the poor because they are humanitarian about them. I'd argue Hillary was very much in the 'calculating' category. For the humanitarian to compare, look at Jimmy Carter or Robert Kennedy.

Sometimes, oddly, a politician can sort of be both. I'd argue that both Lincoln had LBJ had both elements, of humanitarian concerns and cold calculation, but think usually one dominates.

All you need to see of Hillary's 'humanitarianism' is the video of her cackling about the torturous murder of Qadafi. You could also look at her corrupt support of the coup in Honduras. You could watch her calculated treatment of a black protester in her campaign.

Yes, Bush was corrupt and also had a strong inability to do what was intelligent and right but when we were attacked on 9/11 he moved heaven and earth to fix the country.

Well, he 'fixed' by the country by trying to use 9/11 *the same day* to get the war in Iraq he wanted, by fighting to privatize Social Security, by creating a massive security operation and illegal wiretapping, by appointing his personal attorney to be US Attorney General just like trump appointed Barr, on and on. How did he 'fix' the country from 9/11? He forced the Iraq war on it while ignoring bin Laden.

 

[Craig234]

This clearly shows that both of these people had "something" that would prevent the worst from happening. Hillary would not allow bad things to happen to women and children and Bush would defend the nation against our enemies.

Hillary did make something of an agenda of pro-women causes, whether it was humanitarian or political (her 'branding'). Bush had ignored Clinton's warning on Al Queda, disbanded the Al Queda task force, ended the daily briefings on Al Queda, and demoted the anti-terrorism leader, Richard Clarke. He squarely protected the Saudis, and made the country a lot less safe.

Trump has none of that. There is not one single group of people (not even his base) that he would not change his loyalty if it helped him personally. There is not one single thing that Trump has fought for in his life to defend other than himself.

You're right about trump, but I think you think Hillary and Bush are more different from him than they are. Bush had a trump-like background of playboy and incompetence, and he cynically used evangelicals for his political benefit just like trump. His first director of an office for religious payola resigned as Bush's people mocked them behind their backs.

Getting back to the OP, under Trump both sides are losing their moral, ethical, principled and humane compass. Both parties seem to be going to the extremes to accomplish what they want. There doesn't seem to be a "limit" to where they will go. I can certainly understand that on the Democratic side because we are fighting evil and there is no compromise possible with the devil. The only thing the Devil will compromise with is "when you give your soul to him".

I just don't see the problem with Democrats, except that they're not doing enough against Republicans. They're also still too corrupted by some money interests, but a tiny bit compared to Republicans.

Nonetheless, the fact remains that simply talking about party platforms (not about Trump), there is always going to be differences of opinion and way to do things. That will never change. Nonetheless, that has always been the case in the world and in the past those differences could be compromised into an agreement where both sides got some of what they wanted and gave up something they wanted as well. Republicans and Democrats in the past were able to work together in some ways so that things didn't turn impossible where only one way or the other was the ONLY choice.

That just doesn't reflect the real situation. It has nothing to do with 'how' to do things, and is all about who is served. Republicans serve the billionaire class as their only real priority, and they pander to their voters for votes. Democrats are the ones on the side of the American people generally. That's not 'how' to do things, it's opposite goals. Republicans' goal is plutocracy, Democrats' goal, sadly, is less plutocracy. Progressives' goal is the most equal.

My whole OP is about people realizing that we are heading for disaster (not just some pain) and that each of us has the ability to go back to disagreeing without trying to erase the other side from the face of the earth. Trump is the person (not the party) that is stimulating both sides to go to the EXTREMES.

Where are Democrats trying to 'erase Republicans from the face of the Earth', instead of getting them better pay and healthcare?

You and I are not disagreeing on what is happening but you are actually proving my point because you are going to the "extreme" against the Republican party and that is exactly what Trump (the man and not the party) is causing you to do. I feel identically the same as you do but my mind also shows me that the problem is the man and not in general the party. Parties have not really changed all that much but because of Trump, the people in the parties have..............they have been taken to the extreme of their thoughts and feelings. We want the other side gone/dead/erased from the earth. That is just not right as thinking that way puts each of us into the same category that we are criticizing with every fiber in our body.

trump isn't causing me to do anything. My position has nothing to do with trump. It's about plutocracy, and since the Republican Party has become their complete servants, opposing them. There's nothing 'extreme' about opposing them, unless you say FDR was 'extreme' for trying to defeat fascism. The extremism is on the other side - the plutocrats, the fascists.

If someone gets a gun to come shoot your family, trying to stop them doesn't make you 'extreme'. You are making an error that simply supporting 'good government', a system more fair than plutocracy and kleptocracy, is 'extreme'. It's not.

 

[Luckyone]

We agree about trump, but I'm not making your other point.



You're wanting to paint Republicans as largely an ok, reasonable second of two parties, while just the pro-trump part is an issue, but in fact, trump has a record high support from the party, around 90% his whole presidency. Even much of the 10% seems to simply be people who have their own loyalties at odds with trump being loyal to himself, and Bush loyalists. There are very few crumbs for your argument about the Republicans. Some, but few.

The issues are a lot broader than trump also. There are a lot more similarities than you might like to recognize with the Bush election, and even the Reagan election, and arguably even the Goldwater nomination. But was an incompetent who pandered to the far right and served the plutocrats - a hell of a lot like trump without the narcissism and less bigotry (except, e.g., gays). His supporters had a similar mentality to the trump cult. Bush's crime were all just fine with them.



There's a distinction to made here between calculated support for groups, and 'humanitarianism'. One politician might give passionate speeches for the poor because he sees that as the road to power, while he cares nothing for them in private, and another will give passionate speeches for the poor because they are humanitarian about them. I'd argue Hillary was very much in the 'calculating' category. For the humanitarian to compare, look at Jimmy Carter or Robert Kennedy.

Sometimes, oddly, a politician can sort of be both. I'd argue that both Lincoln had LBJ had both elements, of humanitarian concerns and cold calculation, but think usually one dominates.

All you need to see of Hillary's 'humanitarianism' is the video of her cackling about the torturous murder of Qadafi. You could also look at her corrupt support of the coup in Honduras. You could watch her calculated treatment of a black protester in her campaign.



Well, he 'fixed' by the country by trying to use 9/11 *the same day* to get the war in Iraq he wanted, by fighting to privatize Social Security, by creating a massive security operation and illegal wiretapping, by appointing his personal attorney to be US Attorney General just like trump appointed Barr, on and on. How did he 'fix' the country from 9/11? He forced the Iraq war on it while ignoring bin Laden.

I am not painting the Republicans as "Ok" people given that the big problems between the parties was seen "before" Trump came along. There is certainly a strong divide between the parties that has been very strong for some time. Trump did make it even worse though.

Nonetheless, you and I cannot get away from the fact that other than splitting the nation in half and making two countries out of it, we all need to find ways to work together. This means both parties have to find ways to compromise. You are definitely showing that you are not willing to give an inch and that is also what is happening to the other side and that means that there is no solution other than getting rid of the other side totally in some way shape or form.

I see that at the "last" solution given that the problems of that solution will be disastrous to all. I want to prevent a disaster from occurring. It is as simple as that.

 

[Craig234]

You are definitely showing that you are not willing to give an inch and that is also what is happening to the other side and that means that there is no solution other than getting rid of the other side totally in some way shape or form.

That's both meaningless without statistics, and false. How do you know what I will or won't compromise on? And compromise is neither the issue nor what's needed.

Since you're taking this 'compromise' tack, you tell me where you'll meet halfway and compromise on the following list: rape, murder, torture, genocide, shooting into a crowd, wrongly invading a country, stealing an election, poisoning a city's water supply. How does half sound, compromisey? Oh by the way, Republicans have done most of those things in the last 20 years.

I see that at the "last" solution given that the problems of that solution will be disastrous to all. I want to prevent a disaster from occurring. It is as simple as that.

So do I. There right and wrong ways to do that.

'Compromising' isn't the solution. Some compromise will happen, simply by respecting democracy. It's not a reason not to support the right policies.

 

[Luckyone]

That's both meaningless without statistics, and false. How do you know what I will or won't compromise on? And compromise is neither the issue nor what's needed.

Since you're taking this 'compromise' tack, you tell me where you'll meet halfway and compromise on the following list: rape, murder, torture, genocide, shooting into a crowd, wrongly invading a country, stealing an election, poisoning a city's water supply. How does half sound, compromisey? Oh by the way, Republicans have done most of those things in the last 20 years.



So do I. There right and wrong ways to do that.

'Compromising' isn't the solution. Some compromise will happen, simply by respecting democracy. It's not a reason not to support the right policies.

Your post is once again taking it to the extreme. Rape, murder, torture, genocide, poisoning a city water supply? You mean to say that the Republicans support that? That is one of the tenets they are backing? Or it is more that Trump does it and they find excuses for it?

I have not at any time stated that the Republicans are not brainwashed by Trump. They are. That does not mean they actually support any of those. These things are not what they are "trying to accomplish". These are thing they are excusing because of Trump. Big difference.

Look, I am 100% on the same page as you are. I am not defending the Republicans at all. I am just defending life versus death. Life is preferable to death and if we don't find a way to compromise about some of the things the parties disagree on, death will be the only outcome.

Bottom line is that if Trump is gone and someone like Kasich is the one representing the Republicans, the parties will be discussing the difference in party platforms and NOT defending rape, murder, torture, genocide, and poisoning a water supply. We need to get the con man out of office and then deal with the issues that the parties disagree on. Right now it is not about the issues but about the crazy person at the top.

 

[Craig234]

Your post is once again taking it to the extreme.

First, you're missing the point. You say how compromise is the answer to everything, so what's your compromise to that list? Is half of it ok? You call it 'extreme', but the point is, the Republican agenda you want to 'compromise' on is extremely harmful, like that list.

Rape, murder, torture, genocide, poisoning a city water supply? You mean to say that the Republicans support that? That is one of the tenets they are backing? Or it is more that Trump does it and they find excuses for it?

Second, besides missing the point, yes, they have done and defended most of that list. What's the difference if they 'back' it as a 'tenet' or do it and defend it? It's not just trump. trump is accused of rape, they defend all kinds of murders from the Saudi murder of a critic living in the US to countless innocent civilians killed by drones to many more. there was a lot of torture under Bush, not to mention the torture of refugee children, some permanently, intentionally separated from their parents. Julian Assange is in torturous conditions now at our demand, as Chelsea Manning was. Ask Flint Michigan about poisoning a city, as their children suffer terrible damage from the lead Republicans put in their water for years. Republican voters vote for the people who do all those things.

I have not at any time stated that the Republicans are not brainwashed by Trump. They are. That does not mean they actually support any of those.

There's a certain amount of 'voting for a party in spite of things it does wrong', but where do Republican voters show they oppose any of these things? They show no concern for them. They re-elect the people who do them, and often these things are done to PLEASE those voters. trump's vicious policies to border children appear to have been driven by wanting to PLEASE his base. See how 'tough' he is on them? When they keep giving their votes to the people who do those things, and other wrongs, instead of alternatives who wouldn't, they support them. My list of horrors was to make a point you missed, not to be the case against Republicans - it just turned out when I made up a list of horrors, they happened to do them. The list of horrors I'd plan for Republicans ranges from stealing elections, to denying healthcare to tens of millions, to shifting trillions of dollars from the people to the rich, for a start. Yes, they support all that.

Look, I am 100% on the same page as you are. I am not defending the Republicans at all. I am just defending life versus death. Life is preferable to death and if we don't find a way to compromise about some of the things the parties disagree on, death will be the only outcome.

We are largely on the same page. But you have a misguided idea that 'compromise' is what's needed, that it solves anything. You are trying to create some straw man that the alternative to saying "ok, we'll compromise, HALF the country can go without healthcare" is some bloody civil war in which millions are killed. That's not the alternative.

Bottom line is that if Trump is gone and someone like Kasich is the one representing the Republicans, the parties will be discussing the difference in party platforms and NOT defending rape, murder, torture, genocide, and poisoning a water supply. We need to get the con man out of office and then deal with the issues that the parties disagree on. Right now it is not about the issues but about the crazy person at the top.

One of the problems with trump is that he makes terrible people look good in comparison. Kasich WOULD support both the list of Republican wrongs - the plutocracy, the fight against healthcare, the fight for special interests not to be regulated for the public interest, where was he on Bush's stolen election, he'd appoint the same radical Federalist Society judges - AND he even supported a lot of the other horror list too. Where was he on Bush's torture?

There is not this 'two well-intentioned sides debating the best things for the country' you imagine. The Republican Party is wholly owned by plutocratic interests who WANT terrible things, because that's the PRICE for all the wealth and power going into a few hands, and while many Republican voters might not think they support that, by giving their votes in exchange for pandering on 'social conservative' issues like immigrants and bigotry, they do in fact support them.

And the answer is not to 'compromise' on terrible agendas that are not trying to be good for the country, it is to defeat the advocates of those lists. And THEN we can have the 'debate'. We already HAVE more than enough 'debate' and 'division' just in the Democratic Party, between the corporatists and the progressives. You seem to have forgotten how the Republican agenda is *radical*, not a legitimate 'side', even though you oppose it as I do.

 

[Luckyone]

First, you're missing the point. You say how compromise is the answer to everything, so what's your compromise to that list? Is half of it ok? You call it 'extreme', but the point is, the Republican agenda you want to 'compromise' on is extremely harmful, like that list.



Second, besides missing the point, yes, they have done and defended most of that list. What's the difference if they 'back' it as a 'tenet' or do it and defend it? It's not just trump. trump is accused of rape, they defend all kinds of murders from the Saudi murder of a critic living in the US to countless innocent civilians killed by drones to many more. there was a lot of torture under Bush, not to mention the torture of refugee children, some permanently, intentionally separated from their parents. Julian Assange is in torturous conditions now at our demand, as Chelsea Manning was. Ask Flint Michigan about poisoning a city, as their children suffer terrible damage from the lead Republicans put in their water for years. Republican voters vote for the people who do all those things.



There's a certain amount of 'voting for a party in spite of things it does wrong', but where do Republican voters show they oppose any of these things? They show no concern for them. They re-elect the people who do them, and often these things are done to PLEASE those voters. trump's vicious policies to border children appear to have been driven by wanting to PLEASE his base. See how 'tough' he is on them? When they keep giving their votes to the people who do those things, and other wrongs, instead of alternatives who wouldn't, they support them. My list of horrors was to make a point you missed, not to be the case against Republicans - it just turned out when I made up a list of horrors, they happened to do them. The list of horrors I'd plan for Republicans ranges from stealing elections, to denying healthcare to tens of millions, to shifting trillions of dollars from the people to the rich, for a start. Yes, they support all that.



We are largely on the same page. But you have a misguided idea that 'compromise' is what's needed, that it solves anything. You are trying to create some straw man that the alternative to saying "ok, we'll compromise, HALF the country can go without healthcare" is some bloody civil war in which millions are killed. That's not the alternative.



One of the problems with trump is that he makes terrible people look good in comparison. Kasich WOULD support both the list of Republican wrongs - the plutocracy, the fight against healthcare, the fight for special interests not to be regulated for the public interest, where was he on Bush's stolen election, he'd appoint the same radical Federalist Society judges - AND he even supported a lot of the other horror list too. Where was he on Bush's torture?

There is not this 'two well-intentioned sides debating the best things for the country' you imagine. The Republican Party is wholly owned by plutocratic interests who WANT terrible things, because that's the PRICE for all the wealth and power going into a few hands, and while many Republican voters might not think they support that, by giving their votes in exchange for pandering on 'social conservative' issues like immigrants and bigotry, they do in fact support them.

And the answer is not to 'compromise' on terrible agendas that are not trying to be good for the country, it is to defeat the advocates of those lists. And THEN we can have the 'debate'. We already HAVE more than enough 'debate' and 'division' just in the Democratic Party, between the corporatists and the progressives. You seem to have forgotten how the Republican agenda is *radical*, not a legitimate 'side', even though you oppose it as I do.

I give up. You win. I am wrong and you are right. I do not want to continue this argument with you. I don't agree with what you are saying but I have no desire to continue debating it.

I just want to say that you are showing some of the same traits that you criticize the opposition for. End of story.

 

[Craig234]

I give up. You win. I am wrong and you are right. I do not want to continue this argument with you. I don't agree with what you are saying but I have no desire to continue debating it.

I just want to say that you are showing some of the same traits that you criticize the opposition for. End of story.

That's fine, but you are wrong about your claim about 'traits' I showed, to the point that your claim is delusional. Your claim is like looking at a battle between a mass shooter, and police trying to stop him and protect the public, and you saying 'the police are showing the same trait as the shooter'.

You did not show any point, you simply left the discussion, not answering or appearing to understand the arguments made. You remain wrong on the things you were wrong on. "End of story." We agree on a lot, and it's ok to end the discussion when it's not resulting in progress. But don't try to sneak in false attacks while doing so.

 

[Luckyone]

That's fine, but you are wrong about your claim about 'traits' I showed, to the point that your claim is delusional. Your claim is like looking at a battle between a mass shooter, and police trying to stop him and protect the public, and you saying 'the police are showing the same trait as the shooter'.

You did not show any point, you simply left the discussion, not answering or appearing to understand the arguments made. You remain wrong on the things you were wrong on. "End of story." We agree on a lot, and it's ok to end the discussion when it's not resulting in progress. But don't try to sneak in false attacks while doing so.

I have "no desire to argue with you" is the only reason I am giving up. I am NOT wrong but then again causing a split between us (Democrats) is counterproductive and if you think that winning this argument between us is important, then you are actually saying "being right is more important than banding together against evil". I will just say that your desire to be right is exactly what I complain about Trump supporters. They do not listen to reason. You are acting much the same.

I pointed out the fallacy of your statement given that the Republican party platform does not support rape, torture, poisoning etc. and you are saying they do. The fact that some Republicans do support it, does not mean the party supports it and my whole OP was about party and not about the people in the party. On both sides you will find extremes and crazy people and I am not counting them as party supporters but as insanity supporters.

Nonetheless, having said that and you not acknowledging the veracity of it means that arguing about it will not take us anywhere and we need to band together against Trump and not fight each other. Needless to say that I do not agree with you but I am willing to let that pass for the sake of the goal we both want, to get Trump out of office. We can discuss parties after that happens, if you want. This is not the time for it.

 

[Craig234]

I give up.

Part of the problem, is that the people actually 'supporting evil' can be small in number. The people who vote for them for other reasons empower them, even if they don't think they support the wrongs. And beyond both groups, people who are just naive, who think 'both sides' are 'well intentioned', prevent opposing the wrongs as well. You seem to fit in the latter group.

Let's take an example, Nixon sabotaging LBJ's Vietnam peace plan to win the election. Understanding that means understanding just how vile Nixon's actions were, and how they extended the war for years, giving us a million people killed, including 25,000 American troops.

But the 'naive' people would say that saying Nixon's actions were treasonous is an "extreme" claim, that it's a 'partisan' claim, and that to get long with his supporters, the criticism has to be greatly softened, that his actions have to be understood as just being his own approach to what was best for the country, and disagreement on that is ok.

That sort of naivete is not intending to support treason, but that is the effect, it prevents dealing with the problem or even admitting it. It promotes a false 'everyone is well intentioned' claim that is false, for misguided reasons, and is frustrating.

We are faced with great dangers, and they aren't named "trump" for the most part. And pretending that our political situation is just two sides both trying to do what's good for the country is a real enemy of doing what's right for the country. I understand that 'sounds' radical and divisive to the less informed, but that doesn't make it so. What is actually radical and divisive are the agendas of some actors, who want you to think their sheep clothing is real.

 

[Luckyone]

Part of the problem, is that the people actually 'supporting evil' can be small in number. The people who vote for them for other reasons empower them, even if they don't think they support the wrongs. And beyond both groups, people who are just naive, who think 'both sides' are 'well intentioned', prevent opposing the wrongs as well. You seem to fit in the latter group.

Let's take an example, Nixon sabotaging LBJ's Vietnam peace plan to win the election. Understanding that means understanding just how vile Nixon's actions were, and how they extended the war for years, giving us a million people killed, including 25,000 American troops.

But the 'naive' people would say that saying Nixon's actions were treasonous is an "extreme" claim, that it's a 'partisan' claim, and that to get long with his supporters, the criticism has to be greatly softened, that his actions have to be understood as just being his own approach to what was best for the country, and disagreement on that is ok.

That sort of naivete is not intending to support treason, but that is the effect, it prevents dealing with the problem or even admitting it. It promotes a false 'everyone is well intentioned' claim that is false, for misguided reasons, and is frustrating.

We are faced with great dangers, and they aren't named "trump" for the most part. And pretending that our political situation is just two sides both trying to do what's good for the country is a real enemy of doing what's right for the country. I understand that 'sounds' radical and divisive to the less informed, but that doesn't make it so. What is actually radical and divisive are the agendas of some actors, who want you to think their sheep clothing is real.

Like I said in my previous post, this is not the time to argue about parties for two reasons: 1) The Republicans are in charge and nothing can be done until after the November election and 2) Trump is a worse problem than the Republicans as he is the one taking all of us (both Republicans and Democrats) to the extremes.

We are fortunate that many Republicans (the Anti-Trumpers) will be voting Democrat in November but that will not happen thereafter. The discussion about the party differences can be made after the election but right now, the arguments you are making will cement even stronger the differences between the parties rather than cause some Republicans to join the Lincoln Group.

I do not think you are using your head right now in making these arguments at this point because you are just making things more difficult rather than better for all of us that are against Trump. There is a time and a place for each and every debate and right now cementing the sides to their party platform beliefs is counterproductive. I believe we should be working toward convincing those Republicans that are on the fence regarding Trump to vote with us. Nonetheless, if you brand them Trumpers and all that means just because they are "Republicans", then you risk the fact that you may turn THEM toward their party and for Trump rather than on this occasion voting Democrat and against Trump (not necessarily against their own party).

Simply stated, this is the time to use your head and not your emotions.

 

[Craig234]

I have "no desire to argue with you" is the only reason I am giving up. I am NOT wrong but then again causing a split between us (Democrats) is counterproductive and if you think that winning this argument between us is important, then you are actually saying "being right is more important than banding together against evil".

No, it's saying that supporting half of an evil agenda in the name of 'getting along' with people who are fine with all of it is not a good idea. What you're arguing is that supporting a party, no matter how bad, is ok, that supporting the SECOND worst person in the country as leader is ok, as long as you oppose the WORST person as leader. trump is all that matters, and the rest you have to compromise. Wrong.

I asked you to use specifics (which I mistyped as "statistics") for just this reason. WHAT 'divisions' are you talking about, and how does it prevent our uniting against trump or anything else we agree on? Are you saying Democrats can't disagree on any issue, or they can't unite on anything? Actually that is what you said, is it what you mean to say?

I will just say that your desire to be right is exactly what I complain about Trump supporters. They do not listen to reason. You are acting much the same.

That's absurd, offensive, and I could make a lot better case how you are resembling trump supporters, but unlike you I understand why not to do that here.

I pointed out the fallacy of your statement given that the Republican party platform does not support rape, torture, poisoning etc. and you are saying they do.

Even after I EXPLICITLY spell out for you that my list of rape, torture, poisoning was for a specific point you missed, and that I'd use a DIFFERENT list for Republicans which I listed some items for, you completely ignore everything I said and repeated the same false statement. Guess whose supporters that behavior resembles?

I welcomed you 'giving up' because there's not much point when you keep missing the point. I also explained how people who give their votes to monsters because they are pandered to on other issues, are still supporting the monstrous policies by giving them their vote even if they don't support the monstrous policies themselves, even if the don't know about them.

I've said for many years, that all the Republican Party really cares about is plutocracy, but needing votes, it panders to voters on any number of issues, such as 'anti gay marriage' or a 'drug war' or 'anti-immigrant' or dog whistle racism or anything else that gets them votes. So a voter might not like plutocracy, but vote for them because of the gay marriage issue - but that empowers them on plutocracy whether the voter supports it or not.

The fact that some Republicans do support it, does not mean the party supports it and my whole OP was about party and not about the people in the party. On both sides you will find extremes and crazy people and I am not counting them as party supporters but as insanity supporters.

"crazy" and "insane" are not the problem. They might not be good things, but they're not the problem. And making them the problem whitewashes the things that ARE the problem, such as plutocracy and corruption.

Nonetheless, having said that and you not acknowledging the veracity of it means that arguing about it will not take us anywhere and we need to band together against Trump and not fight each other. Needless to say that I do not agree with you but I am willing to let that pass for the sake of the goal we both want, to get Trump out of office. We can discuss parties after that happens, if you want. This is not the time for it.

I disagree with you that now is not the time to try to get people to understand the most important issues facing our country, which are NOT trump, but I agree with you that he IS a huge problem and that we should unite against him.

And not only you, who I think we largely agree on issues, but even people I despise on issues, such as the Bush/corporatist Republicans - like Kasich - who oppose trump. We can unite with them for that purpose, but should not forget why we are against them otherwise. We should also recognize how Republicans get votes, by getting people to vote on 'other issues', and what's needed to get those votes. But ask yourself, why have 90% of Republicans supported trump?

 

[Craig234]

Like I said in my previous post, this is not the time to argue about parties for two reasons: 1) The Republicans are in charge and nothing can be done until after the November election and 2) Trump is a worse problem than the Republicans as he is the one taking all of us (both Republicans and Democrats) to the extremes.

We are fortunate that many Republicans (the Anti-Trumpers) will be voting Democrat in November but that will not happen thereafter. The discussion about the party differences can be made after the election but right now, the arguments you are making will cement even stronger the differences between the parties rather than cause some Republicans to join the Lincoln Group.

I do not think you are using your head right now in making these arguments at this point because you are just making things more difficult rather than better for all of us that are against Trump. There is a time and a place for each and every debate and right now cementing the sides to their party platform beliefs is counterproductive. I believe we should be working toward convincing those Republicans that are on the fence regarding Trump to vote with us. Nonetheless, if you brand them Trumpers and all that means just because they are "Republicans", then you risk the fact that you may turn THEM toward their party and for Trump rather than on this occasion voting Democrat and against Trump (not necessarily against their own party).

Simply stated, this is the time to use your head and not your emotions.

What you are arguing for, is basically, you are demanding that all that matters is defeating trump. Well, then, let's just give Republicans 95% of what they want, and DEMOCRATS should nominate a Republican for president. That's how to get as many Republicans votes as possible, as well as centrists and Democrats, because he's 'better than trump', right?

We can't AFFORD to care about any issues other than beating trump. So plutocracy, civil rights, healthcare, and a thousand other issues, just give them all to Republicans, in order to beat trump! We CAN'T AFFORD to disagree on ANY issues, because that might cost us a vote against trump! Hell, let's run Ivanka, she's better than don, right?

Where we disagree, in part, is that you seem fixated on the 10% of Republicans who don't support trump, and trying to win them over, by compromising on anything, demanding that nothing they disagree with be an issue, pretending they're the key to defeating trump.

That's not only wrong on the issue of how to beat trump, it's wrong morally. It's by offering a LOT of disagreement with Republicans, that can give Americans more and more reasons to care about the Democrats and support them. This is an age old debate, and I lean toward the 'do the right thing' side of it.

The time to argue for what's right, to argue why a party is good or bad, is BEFORE the election. Every time is a good time for that. You seem to only care about not offending Republicans; I disagree that's what's important.

Your position isn't 'crazy'. It's how Democrats have been 'winning' elections since Reagan, giving us corporatists, Clinton and Obama, while the country races to plutocracy under both parties. And I understand sometimes, politically, that's the best we can do - just as Bernie does, as he endorsed Hillary and Biden. But we can both support better than 'half of the Republican agenda', and still fight trump.

As a practical matter, if you show me a Republican who won't vote for Biden because he takes a strong Democratic position, I'll show you a Democrats who won't bother to vote if he DOESN'T take the strong Democratic position.

I see a country on the wrong road for 40 years - faster under Republicans, slower under Democrats, but both. Maybe you don't agree, and 'plutocracy light' is great to you. I don't know. That would explain seeing only trump as the problem. But I want to defeat trump AND move away from plutocracy, including the tyranny of Republican rule, as much as possible. If all we agree on is trump, we can agree on that. If we agree on more, great.