One thing I find amusing is that Republicans and conservatives on this board talk constantly about how they’re unfairly demonized by the mean liberals here. But when there’s a thread that asks a simple, direct question about oft-stated beliefs that should have a fairly simple factual answer, there’s deafening silence. Vague insinuations that the Democrats are going to destory the country are common, but a simple “Platforms C, E, and F are what I’m talking about” seem to be rather lacking.
Also, I want to disagree with a few points that a poster made:
I’m not aware that “Open borders” is an actual Democratic party position. It certainly doesn’t flow from ‘abolish ICE,’ as ICE doesn’t actually do any border patrol work (that is done by the US Border Patrol) and it’s functions were handled by other agencies as recently as the W. Bush presidency. Objections to ICE are rather specifically directed at that agency and the problems it has and has caused, not at the entire concept of border security. Also I will point out that abolishing ICE is actually a conservative (original meaning) position, as ICE is a very recent addition to the government, only being founded in 2003. Certainly much more recent than the Department of Education (1979) or Environmental Protection Agency (1970) or Securities and Exchange Commission (1934) that self-identified conservatives wish to either abolish or reduce to the point of ineffectiveness.
Also there’s a lot of ‘abolish law enforcement’ agitation from Republicans and self-identified conservatives, they just shield it behind rhetoric. Note that two of the agencies I mentioned above do a significant amount of enforcing laws that hinder rich people engaging in crime and damaging activities. And of course there’s the slight issue of Republican response to Trump’s rampant lawbreaking. I would say that there is actually a much, much stronger element of ‘abolish law enforcement’ in the Republican party if you look at all law enforcement and not just ‘law enforcement directed at hurting the poor and minorities’.
Similarly, I don’t actually see where the Democratic Party is actually ‘demonizing wealth’ as a platform. The most radical left-wing proposals out of the Democratic Party for taxing rich people don’t even approach the tax rates under president Nixon (not exactly a darling of progressives), and most of the current crop of presidential candidates are deeply in bed with Wall Street. Categorizing ‘maybe we should raise the taxes on rich people a little and enforce securities and monopoly laws that have been in place since early last century’ as ‘demonizing wealth’ is a bit much, but AFAICT that’s the extent of the Democratic Party’s wild socialist ways. (Not that I disagree with demonizing the filthy rich, I just disagree that the Democratic party actually has a platform remotely near that).
I can see that. But as I’m sure you agree, the Republican counterpoint to the Dems calling for abolishing ICE is to the calling for a new civil war in the United States. I know which crackpot idea is more reasonable.
Because well-educated people with high-demand skills are looking to change the world by working for companies like Google, Microsoft, SpaceX, etc. instead of being email administrators in Springfield and Shelbyville.
ETA: Have I been whooshed again? If you’re referring to this thread, my uninformed opinion is that the democratic platform doesn’t put forward a balanced budget, which is destructive to the country.
I guess, is the burden on me as a Republican to show that the Democratic platform doesn’t put forward a balanced budget?
Not going to bother with the Clinton fact, but if this is your criteria, you’re not really paying attention to American government financing post 1783.
Nothing wrong with the Springfields and Shelbyvilles of the world…yes the steel mills are not coming back, but Democrats should at least offer them something.
The irony is that the steel mill workers were once solid Democratic voters, those voters are now swing voters or Republican-leaning.
Sure, they are great. But not everyone wants to live there, just like not everyone wants to live in San Jose. But the question was, why are places like Silicon Valley and Seattle booming? It’s because really smart people are going there to make a lot of money and come up with amazing tech.
And many folks think that it’s not fair that smart, well educated people who are willing to move get all of the opportunities and advancement.
They want someone to promise them that they can do really really well for themselves, and they don’t have to get a good education, move, or change in any way.
First - this isn’t a direct question with a factual answer.
Second - the way the thread is framed is not aligned with being demonized or not - fairly unrelated.
For me, I don’t find the Democratic Party platform destructive. That seems hyperbolic. I have many disagreements on policy proposals though. You know, like a normal person.
It’s this thread. The Democratic Party’s platform is a matter of fact. Whether pieces are destructive is a matter of opinion or debate, but which ones ‘you’ consider such isn’t.
So your assertion is that the Democratic Party’s platform is as destructive as the Republican Party’s, as neither puts forth a balanced budget. In practice, if a non-balanced budget is ‘destructive’, the Democrats are the way to go as they’ve at least had some since the modern incarnation of the parties, unlike the Republicans. (If you check John T’s post, Eisenhower was the last Republican to manage it, and that was in 1957, which was before the major realignment of the parties caused by the “Southern Strategy” from 1963 on.)
I think the real burden is to show not only that the Democratic Party’s platform is ‘destructive’ in some way, but that said destructiveness is a reason to vote for Republicans instead, since the original post was created specifically in response to a person who stated that they would vote Republican because the Democratic Party’s Platform is destructive. “The Democrats have the same plank as the Republicans on this issue” technically answers the subject line question, but dodges the real question.
True. When you get right down to it, it’s about how the Democratic party’s platform works under the faith-based economics of supply-side, post-Reagan conservative economics, and yes: Against that belief system, the Democratic party platform is hell on Earth.
But when you actually look at the numbers and history… i.e., the facts, not the faith… this contention collapses under the weight of it’s own baselessness.
I’m not really getting my information from anywhere, because as I said I’m not an expert on the Democratic platform. I haven’t done the legwork to support my assertion and I’ll admit that - I have admitted that upfront. I occasionally listen to radio but most of the time it’s music, and the only television I watch is cartoons. I occasionally read a local newspaper and news aggregators like Google News. I read threads here, and occasionally people talk about current events and I overhear them.
But keeping a balanced budget is something I’ve held as desirable since grade school. That comes from my parents, and I naturally extend the concept to government. Yes, I did learn about expansionist policies and Keynesian economics in high school. But I think it’s dangerous to run a large deficit for years and years on end. At some point, creditors may lose faith in the government, especially without a gold standard backed up by reserves, and without faith the only way to avoid default is hyperinflation.