"44 years a Republican, 1 year an Independent, today I'm joining the Democratic Party"

[Nakosis]

meh. The two major parties are greedy, unloyal whores interested in money instead of the betterment of our nation. Democrats fund rebel groups, accept donations from countries that don't align with American values in the slightest, and then they start wars that the US has no business being a part of. I just don't see them as any better than the Republicans and don't understand how others see them can see them as so different.

Yes I think his mistake is assuming things will be different by defecting across the aisle. Power ends up corrupting everyone. It's not like it's evil, just the nature of being human is one of self-interest.

So maybe it'll take him another 44 years if he is around that long to see nothing's changed by becoming a democrat.

 

[Mister Emu]

They are trade protectionists and isolationists. This is the final betrayal of Ronald Reagan.

Interestingly, though I don't necessarily agree with all isolation and protectionism; this is why I have considered joining the Republican party and voted for the first time for a Republican presidential candidate. It gave me a glimmer of hope, one that I don't think will materialize in at least this election cycle, that one of the two parties might actually begin to care about the American blue collar worker, and won't think we should live in a country divided by a massive wealth gap between a patrician-esque financial and technological sector and a plebian service sector.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So after over a half a lifetime, this guy finally noticed that the Republicans don't represent his values?

This suggests that he chose his party by faith - faith that his family had had it right, and that he only need vote like they always did to be right as well. Then, one day, he decided to let evidence in, which is to his credit. It's remarkable that Trump got almost half of the popular vote, and still has over a third of Americans supporting him. Given all of the red flags flying during the campaign and since, it's reasonable to assume that such people make their political choices by faith - by gut feeling - and ignoring evidence. That kind of thinking isn't working out too well.

Does his decision matter to his country? Not if he's the exception, and so many people keep voting by gut based on what they hope will happen rather than what evidence suggests will happen.

Does his decision matter to himself or his family? Changing parties is just a gesture. If voting still matters, your party affiliation only affects which primary you can vote in, not which candidate you can choose in the general election. That man's life will not change one iota because he will now vote Democratic, even if he's voting in an honest election.

If you want real change, you need to change your life, not your vote. If it's an option, I would recommend considering moving into another culture, climate, and economy.

 

[RedDragon94]

44 years a Republican, 1 year an Independent, today I'm joining the Democratic Party

Please discuss.

I hate the two-party system. No one ever can coincide on anything without betraying their conscience.

I agree with him on the issue of public education. Because the political right is more religious they probably do support private education over secularism. What they don't understand is that secularism is what keeps society going and progressing.

I have no problem with isolationism though.

And as long as people can pay their bills I try not to judge less fortunate people.

What people on the left don't understand about Islam is that it is anti-secular. It is. Look at the crap going on in Germany, this is why isolationism is a good thing. And I'm not saying ban immigrants, just secure the borders and require those immigrants from wherever across the planet to assimilate to our American culture.

Because let's be honest, American secular democracy is better than Sharia law.

I'm probably a Libertarian just because I am liberal when it comes to social issues and conservative when it comes to taxes. I've also been described as a centrist a couple of times.

 

[sun rise]

When I was growing up, the Republican party was the party of Eisenhower and, in New York State, Jacob Javits. Today their politics would not be Republican but Democratic and pretty liberal Democratic at that.

Over the years the Republican party has moved further and further away from the founding ideals as the piece noted. In 2008 I could still conceive of voting for a Republican. Today I'd rather chop off my legs than vote for them.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

This is similar to me, except I spent 41 years not caring, 1 year not giving a crap, and today I don't give two farts.

 

[YmirGF]

First I heard of that. Got a link to this huge problem?

What problem? Dems have no problems, silly.

 

[leibowde84]

"Ignorant"? No, I see the bigger picture and look beyond the surface, which is the exact opposite of "ignorant." Those who only rely on soundbites from right-wing economists who have been hawking free trade since the Reagan era are those who strike me as far more ignorant than anything you can accuse me of.

Nope. I don't listen to right-wing economists who hawk free trade. Never have.

You're just relying on propaganda and posturing here.

Wrong again. I rely on only the facts and common sense. Not on the opinions of others, including talking heads.

If you have something of substance to bring to the discussion than please do, but your insistence on name-calling rather then discussing facts makes any kind of reasonable discussion with you quite difficult.

Sure. Free trade is the absolute best thing for us. TPP was a geo-political tool that would have given us leverage with China. We would have been able to go to the table, tell them that every single country around them (worth a dime ... N. Korea doesn't matter regarding trade) is our trading partner and not theirs, and it would have forced them to play fair. Now they have absolutely no reason to play fair.

Steel, for example, is something that the Republicans are trying to artificially protect. Steel manufacturing is not important to the US economy, or at least it is not nearly as important as getting the cheapest steel no matter where it comes from. People who are ignorant of the big picture say, "the steel workers wouldn't agree", but for every 1 steel job, there are about 100 manufacturing jobs that rely on cheap steel. If we artificially increase the price of steel to help US steel manufacturers, we hurt literally every manufacturer who uses steel. Thus, it is far better to open up free trade for steel, possibly killing US steel mills, as it will help every industry that relies on cheap steel.

Manufacturing in the US was not killed by trade deals. That is a dangerous, ignorant myth. Automation is killing manufacturing in the US. If you look at the increase in manufacturing in the U.S. and massive decrease of manufacturing jobs, it becomes painfully obvious. It is not trade, it is increased efficiency and automation.

Manufacturing jobs are never coming back in the U.S. Just like coal workers, the only responsible thing to do is to accept this and help manufacturing and coal workers find new careers. Lying to them, and having them cling to the "fake news" that Trump is going to somehow, miraculously bring back jobs that are no longer needed is cruel and irresponsible.

 

[tytlyf]

What problem? Dems have no problems, silly.

That's ok, I knew it was fake.

 

[PureX]

To be fair, a lot of the republican base never get to hear those things. The GOP media intentionally doesn't report on them. Kinda like how it's strange any veteran would vote republican. If they knew the track records on helping veterans, they'd run from the republican party super fast.

It's all the conservative media teaching them things. And it's echoed from edge to edge in the echo chamber by all conservative entertainers. It's propaganda. All the signs and indicators are there.

Here's some good reading material.

Propaganda Techniques Ten Commandments of Propaganda 1) Divide and Conquer a)More small groups are easier to pit against each other 2) Tell the people. - ppt download

View attachment 18347
View attachment 18346

You are absolutely right.

One of my "favorites" was BP spending hundreds of millions of dollars of long TV advertisements intended to tell us all how much they love us, and how they "fixed" the Gulf oil spill, etc., when all they were really doing was shoveling money to the media to buy their silence the next time a pipeline broke, or a rig spewed oil. Because what media mogul is going to risk a hundred million dollar client for a few days of oil disaster news? And it worked like a charm! A pipeline broke in some town in the midwest and oil ran through the streets of Everytown, Middle America. Yet not a peep about it was uttered by any of the major news corporations. No TV cameras showed the sticky mess, and no talking heads complained about the stench. No one mentioned that tar-sands oil has chemicals in it that make it sink in water, so it can't be skimmed off the top like regular crude oil when it spills. Or that we have no method of recovering it from the bottom of our rivers and streams once it gets in them.

Bribery plain and simple, and all completely legal.

 

[tytlyf]

You are absolutely right.

One of my "favorites" was BP spending hundreds of millions of dollars of long TV advertisements intended to tell us all how much they love us, and how they "fixed" the Gulf oil spill, etc., when all they were really doing was shoveling money to the media to buy their silence the next time a pipeline broke, or a rig spewed oil. Because what media mogul is going to risk a hundred million dollar client for a few days of oil disaster news? And it worked like a charm! A pipeline broke in some town in the midwest and oil ran through the streets of Everytown, Middle America. Yet not a peep about it was uttered by any of the major news corporations. No TV cameras showed the sticky mess, and no talking heads complained about the stench. No one mentioned that tar-sands oil has chemicals in it that make it sink in water, so it can't be skimmed off the top like regular crude oil when it spills. Or that we have no method of recovering it from the bottom of our rivers and streams once it gets in them.

Bribery plain and simple, and all completely legal.

Well, the democratic party is trying to fight corporate ownership of government. Not pass laws that give them more money, more of my tax dollars at the expense of the middle class, dirtying up the water and air because it's cheaper, buying up congress in the hopes of writing new laws and/or removing laws that hurt the bottom line (evil regulations).

The problem with America's government is simple, the republican party have sold their souls to the highest bidder. And they lie intentionally to keep the gravy train of tax payer dollars subsidizing their profits.

Public education? Nope, that money deserves to be used in a corporate private charter school
Public prisons? Nope, that money deserves to be used in a corporate private prison
Public Social Security? Nope, that money deserves to go into corporate hands to deal with
Public Medicare? Nope, that money deserves to go to Big Pharma where it belongs.
Pre-existing conditions? Nope, that's expensive (hurts profits)

There's nothing wrong with capitalism, until it reaches the stage where it's at with the people controlling the republican party and our government.

Citizens United?
Patriot Act?

Propaganda can be used for good and bad things. The problem with republicans is that there is an evil intent behind their propaganda.

 

[PureX]

Well, the democratic party is trying to fight corporate ownership of government.

Ha! I WISH! They sputter and moan about it occasionally, but when the bribe money starts to fly, they're right there in line with the republicans.

Not pass laws that give them more money, more of my tax dollars at the expense of the middle class, dirtying up the water and air because it's cheaper, buying up congress in the hopes of writing new laws and/or removing laws that hurt the bottom line (evil regulations).

They like to pretend to be against these things, but the sad truth is, these things just keep on happening, and no one is stopping them.

When Obama took office he had a democratic super-majority in the house and the senate. There weren't enough republicans to stop them from enacting any legislation they wanted. Or that Obama wanted. But the very first thing Obama wanted was REAL health care reform - a single payer system. And immediately the congress fell into some inexplicable stupor and could not manage to put such reforms into action, even when all they had to do was expand medicaid and set prices. But no, the bribe money was flying, and all those democrats could come up with was a 25 year old republican band-aid plan that Romney set up in one state. So they are just as corrupt as any republicans, when it comes right down to taking the bribe money, and screwing the American people.

 

[The magical volleyball]

The American political process is way to screwed up. It promotes greed and corruption. I think we should:

1. Term limits of 12 yrs on President (3 4yr terms), senate ( 2 6yr terms), and house (6 2 yr terms).

2. Capping campaign donations and political spending.

3. Ban political commercials and robocalls.

4. Eliminate superpacs and require full transparency for all political donations.

5. Ban former politicians from becoming lobbyists.

I'm sure there is more we could do but these seem like some comment sense things to start with.

 

[The magical volleyball]

There is a strong movement in the far right to acquire public sources of information to downplay corruption, attack enemies and consistently misinform. Fox news is the most famous example but the far right is smart and know that if you want to get your message to sink in make sure it's the only side heard. They own 70% of local news networks and most talk radio. I can tell you personally as a person from rural Republican territory if all you have for acquiring new information is the radio and antenna television then all you hear and see is the far right version.

 

[Stevicus]

Nope. I don't listen to right-wing economists who hawk free trade. Never have.

Anyone who supports free trade is right wing, economically speaking.

Wrong again. I rely on only the facts and common sense. Not on the opinions of others, including talking heads.

Then why do I keep seeing the same arguments parroted by the same people? I've been hearing the same BS arguments since before NAFTA was passed (along with the usual lame insults that people who disagree are "ignorant," etc.). "We are now in a global economy" was the popular phrase at the time (as if the "global economy" didn't exist before the 1990s). Republicans pushed full tilt to get NAFTA passed, and Clinton was also instrumental in using the Democratic Party muscle to bring in those who were against it. Not a single Republican opposed NAFTA, so free trade is most definitely a right-wing invention.

Sure. Free trade is the absolute best thing for us.

This is why I dismiss such statements as propaganda. The "absolute best thing"? Seriously?

TPP was a geo-political tool that would have given us leverage with China. We would have been able to go to the table, tell them that every single country around them (worth a dime ... N. Korea doesn't matter regarding trade) is our trading partner and not theirs, and it would have forced them to play fair. Now they have absolutely no reason to play fair.

No one ever has any reason to play fair, unless they want fair treatment for themselves.

Steel, for example, is something that the Republicans are trying to artificially protect. Steel manufacturing is not important to the US economy, or at least it is not nearly as important as getting the cheapest steel no matter where it comes from. People who are ignorant of the big picture say, "the steel workers wouldn't agree", but for every 1 steel job, there are about 100 manufacturing jobs that rely on cheap steel. If we artificially increase the price of steel to help US steel manufacturers, we hurt literally every manufacturer who uses steel. Thus, it is far better to open up free trade for steel, possibly killing US steel mills, as it will help every industry that relies on cheap steel.

I'm not sure how it can be blamed solely on the Republicans. Democrats have been traditionally pro-union, so they too would have an interest in protecting their constituents in the Rust Belt.

However, I don't think it's really a matter of pressuring the workers. If we really want cheap steel, then the thing to do would be to pressure the executives of the steel companies, not the workers. The executives set the price, and greed is the only explanation for why the prices are so high.

Manufacturing in the US was not killed by trade deals. That is a dangerous, ignorant myth.

This is part of the reason why your statements come off as propagandistic. To use emotionally-derived invective like "dangerous, ignorant myth" makes your position one of melodrama than facts. There's nothing "dangerous" about it at all.

Automation is killing manufacturing in the US. If you look at the increase in manufacturing in the U.S. and massive decrease of manufacturing jobs, it becomes painfully obvious. It is not trade, it is increased efficiency and automation.

The manufactured items we import are NOT made by robots. If they were, they could be just as easily made in the US - and your "sky is falling" rhetoric about protectionism would be completely irrelevant. Protectionism would be a non-issue if everything was made domestically by robots. The fact that you and so many others go into a virtual panic every time someone even thinks about questioning free trade is proof positive that your statement above is totally false.

Manufacturing jobs are never coming back in the U.S. Just like coal workers, the only responsible thing to do is to accept this and help manufacturing and coal workers find new careers. Lying to them, and having them cling to the "fake news" that Trump is going to somehow, miraculously bring back jobs that are no longer needed is cruel and irresponsible.

Look, we're not talking about 19th century jobs or products that nobody uses anymore. We're talking about manufactured products that people still buy and use, and which are made overseas by (deeply exploited) human labor, not machines. We still use coal, too.

 

[SpaceAgeLove]

"What people on the left don't understand about Islam is that it is anti-secular. It is. Look at the crap going on in Germany, this is why isolationism is a good thing. And I'm not saying ban immigrants, just secure the borders and require those immigrants from wherever across the planet to assimilate to our American culture.

Because let's be honest, American secular democracy is better than Sharia law. "

I'm really glad to know someone else understands this. I've always been baffled by liberals who defend islam and support mass immigration of people who don't share our values, then will bash christians all day for not baking a cake for a gay couple. One is significantly more of a problem than the other, because at this point christianity has been castrated in the west and doesn't really commit any atrocities. It's beating a dead horse to gripe about it. Kind of funny how i'm on the opposite end of the political spectrum, but often end up agreeing with Libertarians on many things.

 

[tytlyf]

Ha! I WISH! They sputter and moan about it occasionally, but when the bribe money starts to fly, they're right there in line with the republicans.

They like to pretend to be against these things, but the sad truth is, these things just keep on happening, and no one is stopping them.

When Obama took office he had a democratic super-majority in the house and the senate. There weren't enough republicans to stop them from enacting any legislation they wanted. Or that Obama wanted. But the very first thing Obama wanted was REAL health care reform - a single payer system. And immediately the congress fell into some inexplicable stupor and could not manage to put such reforms into action, even when all they had to do was expand medicaid and set prices. But no, the bribe money was flying, and all those democrats could come up with was a 25 year old republican band-aid plan that Romney set up in one state. So they are just as corrupt as any republicans, when it comes right down to taking the bribe money, and screwing the American people.

The parties are completely different. The corporate involvement is much greater on the republican side. The policies introduced prove this.
If both sides love corporate influence, then why is only 1 party in favor of Citizens United?
This discussion is more than just corporations that both sides have connections to. It's deeper than that. Republicans view the government as a big pile of tax payer cash. They direct that money to as many corporations as they can. Which is why they want everything privatized.

You have the Koch's on the right spending hundreds of millions of dollars every election season. I don't think anyone on the D side comes close to that. And they spend that money with hopes to keep or remove laws they don't agree with or may hurt their bottom line.

 

[Falvlun]

I hate the two-party system. No one ever can coincide on anything without betraying their conscience.

I agree with him on the issue of public education. Because the political right is more religious they probably do support private education over secularism. What they don't understand is that secularism is what keeps society going and progressing.

I have no problem with isolationism though.

And as long as people can pay their bills I try not to judge less fortunate people.

What people on the left don't understand about Islam is that it is anti-secular. It is. Look at the crap going on in Germany, this is why isolationism is a good thing. And I'm not saying ban immigrants, just secure the borders and require those immigrants from wherever across the planet to assimilate to our American culture.

Because let's be honest, American secular democracy is better than Sharia law.

I'm probably a Libertarian just because I am liberal when it comes to social issues and conservative when it comes to taxes. I've also been described as a centrist a couple of times.

I honestly think Christian conservatism is much more a threat to American democracy than the possibility of Sharia law coming to town.

 

[metis]

I honestly think Christian conservatism is much more a threat to American democracy than the possibility of Sharia law coming to town.

And I'm wondering if much of "Christian conservatism" is even Christian at all? When we see 79% of American evangelicals voting for Trump after all he's said and done, what's "Christian" about that?

If we take what Jesus says in the gospels, and then try and match that with what Trump has repeatedly said and done, I don't see hardly any correlation whatsoever. When I hear or read self-professed "Christians" proposing that we vote "Trumpcare" in, which would cut 20+ million Americans off of Medicaid plus put a much greater burden on those who are elderly or have pre-conditions, how in the world does that fit into the gospel? How does Trump, who has admitted his affairs and cheating on at least one of his wives, fit into what Jesus said about adultery? How about Trump's persistent name-calling, or how he says he doesn't need God's forgiveness fit in? Etc.? Etc.?

I can understand a person of faith not wanting to vote for Hillary (I didn't want to either, but I did btw), but why would one vote for Trump with all his unethical "baggage"?

Jesus said "love one another as I have loved you", but does anyone see this being reflected in what Trump has said and done, such as his bragging that he could grab a woman by the genitals? or bragging about Ivanka's breast size? or intentionally walking in on contestants changing their clothes? or ...?

 

[RedDragon94]

I honestly think Christian conservatism is much more a threat to American democracy than the possibility of Sharia law coming to town.

That's okay. Christianity doesn't protect human rights when it gets right down to it.