Does defeat cause a party to moderate or radicalize?

[penultima_thule]

@adaher

Yeah, Democrats want single payer now and no immigration enforcement. They’ve actually left European left-wing parties in the dust. That’s not smart.

Also wildly inaccurate.

DEMs and Euro-lefts aren’t on the same side of centre.
In Euroland, all but the ultra right favour single payer.
There’s also the odd difference over economic policy in the party platforms.

[octopus]

@Little_Nemo

Yeah, when Al Gore looked in your eyes, you just melted.

More people voted for the Democratic candidate than the Republican candidate in six of the last seven Presidential elections. The Republicans have clung to power by controlling the voting system not because the American public supports them.

Winning the game that no one is playing accomplishes what, exactly?

[adaher]

@penultima_thule

Also wildly inaccurate.

DEMs and Euro-lefts aren’t on the same side of centre.
In Euroland, all but the ultra right favour single payer.
There’s also the odd difference over economic policy in the party platforms.

Actually, in Euroland, all but the ultra right support whatever UHC model exists, with some on the ultra left wanting to go to single payer and always failing.

[kurtisokc]

@AI_Proofreader

It’s worth noting that it wasn’t until 2003 that the Supreme Court ruled sodomy was legal on a federal level, making it effectively illegal to be born gay before 2003.

That characterization is so inaccurate that I just couldn’t let it go. First, it ignores the fact that by 2003 the majority of states had already repealed their sodomy laws. But beyond that criminalizing sexual behavior is simply not the same as a law against having a predilection towards that behavior. I happen to agree that the state ought not to be in the business of regulating sexual acts between consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes, but you don’t help your cause when you make such blatantly falsifiable claims.

[AI_Proofreader]

@kurtisokc

That characterization is so inaccurate that I just couldn’t let it go. First, it ignores the fact that by 2003 the majority of states had already repealed their sodomy laws. But beyond that criminalizing sexual behavior is simply not the same as a law against having a predilection towards that behavior. I happen to agree that the state ought not to be in the business of regulating sexual acts between consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes, but you don’t help your cause when you make such blatantly falsifiable claims.

Granted, it wasn’t illegal the way it is in Saudi Arabia where if someone testifies that you’re gay, they can behead you in public even if no one has ever seen you so much as holding hands with someone of the opposite sex.

But I did say effectively illegal. We can easily imagine homosexual individuals who chose to be alone their entire lives rather than have a relationship and break the law. Pretty empty and sad, but it would be legal.

[Pleonast]

@LSLGuy

our rigid archaic constitution precludes any sort of slow evolution of our system of government. It must remain exactly as it was in 1780 until the day it shatters under the strain.

This is very much not true. A quick review of constitutional amendments that have changed our system of government:
12–changed presidential elections.
15–expanded the voting franchise. (No race-based limits.)
17–changed senatorial elections.
19–expanded the voting franchise. (No gender-based limits.)
20–changed federal office terms. (This amendment is the poster child of “slow evolution of our system of government”.)
22–changed presidential qualifications.
23–expanded the voting franchise. (DC electoral votes.)
24–expanded the voting franchise. (No poll taxes.)
26–expanded the voting franchise. (Lowers voting age.)

Perhaps you meant that our constitution precludes quick changes, because we have a clear history of slow evolution.