How is the Democratic Party's Platform Destructive?

[Max_S]

@JohnT

Oh, and Max?

Here is the last Democratic Platform which produced a balance budget within your lifetime. Your challenge… should you choose to accept it… is to find the same for Republican Presidents in the post-1929 period.

I readily admit that Democrats have passed more balanced budgets than Republicans in the last 90 years. What’s your point? Does this somehow invalidate my want for a balanced budget in 2021?

~Max

[JohnT]

No, it invalidates your position and argument for purposes of this topic.

[Max_S]

@Pantastic

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.

Whooshed twice in one thread. At least I caught myself this time!

@Pantastic

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 wouldn’t say the party platforms are equally destructive by way of the budget. Certainly the actual budget proposal fails by this standard; the platform itself at least claims to reduce the national debt (I don’t know how, haven’t read the whole thing in three years).

@Pantastic

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.

Then the real question is one that I answer in the negative: it doesn’t. I’m not a Republican because they are better on the budget in practice than Democrats. I’m a Republican because my parents were Republicans, because my friends are (for the most part) Republicans, because my city, county, and state are Republican, because with one exception*, every single elected official that won elections I could vote in, ever since I could vote, has been Republican, because we have closed primaries, and because I actually agree with a number of so-called Republican principles.

So I’m different from HurricaneDitka in ways that prevent me from answering on his behalf. You will have to ask HurricaneDitka directly, he’s already made one post in this thread.

*the exception was our commissioner of elections, which is now also a Republican

~Max

[snfaulkner]

@Annoyed

In hardcore democrat strongholds, according to the article. So whats that saying about the Democrat party. They cant even fix their own hardcore areas.

You understand supply and demand, right? It’s saying that more and more people want to live in democratic strongholds. More than there is housing for. Republican backwater shitholes are cheap because there isn’t demand to fill the housing supply that is there.