FWIW, I’ve long said that we can choose between:
- The party of tax and spend, or
- The party of tax cut and spend
I think there’s some truth there.
FWIW, I’ve long said that we can choose between:
I think there’s some truth there.
As I said, I stay repubican so I can vote in the restricted pollings, if I changed to democrat, I couldn’t vote in those any longer. Why would you think I actually vote for the insane republicans? I vote for those with the platform I can associate with.
And fiscal responsibility means making sure there are enough tax collectors and enforcers to pry money out of the hands of the asshat rich who don’t want to fund societal requirements and just hoard money. Money needs to circulate to have a healthy economy. We need housing and health care for the poor and homeless, we need socialized medicine. We need to reform the tax code to collect the money we need to perform as a government.
You belong to a group that tried to violently overthrow our democracy and yet you poison the well but saying we can’t really point out that you are a member of a radical, violent anti-democratic party. My advice to you is to continue your journey, at least you’ve started, but you might want to look at how your party got to where it is and ask yourself if it’s all that different from before.
What is her answer?
Your effort can’t hurt but it is probably too late now for it to help things that much.
The ultimate problem is the two-party system and first-past-the post. As long as voters (realistically) have only two candidates to choose from we’ll have voters unwilling to vote for the other, “evil” side’s candidate even if they by-and-large share the same politics.
Until we (in the US) find a way to meaningfully incorporate other parties we will only see more and more voters saying: “I will ONLY vote R (or ONLY vote D) across the board. Period.”
I think we need to somehow get some form of proportional-representation for congress so that 3rd (and 4th and 5th) parties actually get elected thus congress would have to form real coalitions to legislate. Only then will voters feel they can inch away from their lifelong, knee-jerk R or D party-line vote and instead choose an option more in line with their own political beliefs.
Presidential elections with some kind of instant-runoff could open up those races to 3rd party candidates but I think the House and Senate are more important to “open up”.
We don’t need a Republican party. We don’t need a conservative party. That doesn’t mean we would have one-party rule. If the Republican party would be magically eliminated today that doesn’t mean that we would be left with a Democratic monopoly. The coalition that is currently Democratic is not a monolith. There is plenty of disagreement on actual policy grounds that would be an absolutely fine basis for political competition and discussion. And because the Republicans and conservatives would be gone, the basis of that political competition and discussion would be practical, rational policy decisions, not the superstition and paranoia that is the only thing that conservatism has to bring to the table. Conservatism has no value other than resistance to change. That brings nothing useful to a political conversation. Without conversation, we could have more rational discussions over policy
.
Please avoid off topic posts. Reread the OP and this is not actually on topic and a potential hijack.
I’ve hid your post in a spoiler.
I’m not familiar with the restricted pollings. What is that?
I’m a moderate liberal.
While I don’t want anyone to harm themselves, I’m mostly of the opinion that if does not hurt others, it’s non of our business.
I guess I’m agnostic (that’s how agnostic I am). I have no problem with religious people, but frankly think they are wasting their time. But, if it helps them, that’s great! Don’t push your beliefs on me though. That just won’t stand, I can think for myself thankyouverymuch.
In Colorado, you don’t have to be registered to vote in the primaries. What I will do on either ticket is look for the biggest idiot, and vote for someone else.
I consider myself to be a “principled conservative,” and am aghast at what the Republican Party has become. Between all the anti-science conspiracy theories and Trump/MAGA bullshit, they’ve really lost their way. Whatever happened to wanting a smaller, less-intrusive federal government? Whatever happened to wanting less government spending?
I checked out the Libertarian Party. But those people are nuts. Nothing but infighting.
I’m not @aruvqan but to me it means a primary where voting for candidates of a particular party is restricted to members of that party. It has its pluses and minuses.
That’s what I thought. Here in Michigan one doesn’t have to be a “member” of either party to vote in primary elections. You just ask for the republican or democrat ballot. Proposals or amendments would be printed on both ballots. In general elections one can vote for whomever is on the ballot.
I’ve crossed party lines in primaries before depending on the candidate.
Until 2018 I was registered as Libertarian – the anarchist-lite branch of the party, not the republican-lite – but switched to independent because in Arizona, independents can request any party’s ballot in the primary election. In part I was motivated to see if I could pull the republicans back from the abyss.
For the 2020 election I requested a Republican ballot because there were a few candidates, US House, state house and senate, who weren’t trying to out-Trump each other – not so for US Senate. None of them prevailed in the primaries.
The form choosing the ballot for the 2022 primary came a few weeks ago and I did a skim through Ballotopedia looking at the Republican candidates’ websites to see if there were any I could vote for and keep my lunch. There were none so I requested the Democratic ballot.
That the financial concerns are much more important to the health of the nation, and could have much more devastating effects on it, than “social justice”. Sure, gays weren’t able to (and likely won’t be able to in a couple years when this SCOTUS overturns Obergefell) marry and there are still some remnants of racism on an individual basis, but over-taxation of job creators, a massive national debt, and out-of-control government spending will result in the downfall of the economy and the country. She’s a wonderful person, who is for same-sex marriage, anti-discrimination, and anti-Trumpism, but, to her, the market will take care of the ills of social injustice (racist business owners will go out of business, and those that support support social justice will flourish). But harming the free market and fiscal irresponsibility by the government will cause the collapse of capitalism and, likely, the nation.
I know, going Dr. Phil won’t help, but how do you resist asking “and how’s that all working out for you?” It’s hard
None of my business, but does she look anything like Milton Friedman (, too) ?
They are not, however, the only issues that matter.
Correct. The only issue that matters is the eradication of the Republican Party. They passed the event horizon of salvageability with the 1994 midterms. The only thing that can be done is eliminate the Party and then regroup with one of the factions that the Democratic Party will split into the next day.
The only issue that matters is the eradication of the Republican Party.
This reminds me of an old saying: “Be careful what you wish for. It might come true.”