(01-18-2019 01:11 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I'm a globalist capitalist, who favors regulation in areas of market concentration and inelastic price demand curves. I believe in free trade and free movement. I believe in reasonable consumer regulation and legal bans on discrimination (on moral grounds as well as because they are economically irrational). I believe in higher minimum wages, but not a mandated 'living wage'. I believe in progressive taxation that really taxes person making more money at higher rates, because that form of taxation is the most efficient for the economy.

Well, that's not exactly the person you've played on here. I'm a nationalist, not a globalist (and that's the precise distinction I'm making, so don't go hanging any of that "white nationalist" BS on me), but I do recognize the need to participate in a modern global economy. You have expressed support for regulation that extends far beyond the limits you have stated here. I believe in capitalism with a safety net. I believe that progressive taxation, particularly in an era where the rest of the world has gone to ever flatter tax systems, in large part because they saw that Reaganomics worked, runs significant risks of capital flight, destroying the positive impacts of any economic "efficiencies" you claim to result.

If those are truly your positions, then I think we could probably work out an approach that we could both support. But I have to say, I question whether those are your true positions in the light of your prior comments on here.

Quote:I can promise you, there are plenty in the Democratic Party that believe in far more left wing stuff. Instead of progressive taxation to balance a budget, they believe in confiscatory taxation as a means to limit incomes. Instead of a slightly higher minimum wage, they believe in a mandated living wage for all employment. Instead of affordable college paired with mandates about degree choice and accountability to the institution receiving taxpayer funding for producing graduates that can earn in the marketplace, they demand no questions asked taxpayer funding of all degress - regardless of how worthless that degree is. Instead of economically balanced regulation to prevent market concentration and abuse of inelastic price demand in some industries - they demand state takeovers of those industries. Instead of free trade, they demand no trade. Instead of legal protection from discrimination, they demand redistribution and reparations and massive set asides. I could go on and on.

It's a slippery slope, and even someone with your claimed positions is well on the way to sliding down it. And I pretty much find every single one of this second set of stated positions to be anathema.

Quote:The good news is that the top tier Dem candidates for President are closer to me than to door number 2. But the base....is starting to get a lot closer to the left wing than you think.

No, they are not. They may claim to be, but in their hearts they are not. And you are correct about the base. That is what really scares me. We have two parties whose bases are out of touch with reality, and our election process, particularly the primary process, is skewing each party ever closer to its base.

Quote:But if I need to take door number 2 in order to get rid of Trump, I'll do so gladly. Don't care. He's got to go.

So anybody but Trump? Anybody?

https://freebeacon.com/politics/the-lack...tic-field/

Democrats run the 20 "Smurfs," improving DJT's chances.

(01-18-2019 01:11 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 10:14 PM)q5sys Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 07:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  This should you scare the f*ck out of you. I"m considered a CENTER-RIGHT Democrat. Not even close to the left of the party.

No you're not. The fact that you (or your friends) think you are just shows how clueless many Dems have become about where the center is, and where the center of their party is.
Per your comments in this forum, you're in the ideological post-modern left. That's not even center left.
Your claim that you're a Center-Right Democrat is absolutely astonishing.

I'm a globalist capitalist, who favors regulation in areas of market concentration and inelastic price demand curves. I believe in free trade and free movement. I believe in reasonable consumer regulation and legal bans on discrimination (on moral grounds as well as because they are economically irrational). I believe in higher minimum wages, but not a mandated 'living wage'. I believe in progressive taxation that really taxes person making more money at higher rates, because that form of taxation is the most efficient for the economy.

I can promise you, there are plenty in the Democratic Party that believe in far more left wing stuff. Instead of progressive taxation to balance a budget, they believe in confiscatory taxation as a means to limit incomes. Instead of a slightly higher minimum wage, they believe in a mandated living wage for all employment. Instead of affordable college paired with mandates about degree choice and accountability to the institution receiving taxpayer funding for producing graduates that can earn in the marketplace, they demand no questions asked taxpayer funding of all degress - regardless of how worthless that degree is. Instead of economically balanced regulation to prevent market concentration and abuse of inelastic price demand in some industries - they demand state takeovers of those industries. Instead of free trade, they demand no trade. Instead of legal protection from discrimination, they demand redistribution and reparations and massive set asides. I could go on and on.

----

The good news is that the top tier Dem candidates for President are closer to me than to door number 2. But the base....is starting to get a lot closer to the left wing than you think.

---

But if I need to take door number 2 in order to get rid of Trump, I'll do so gladly. Don't care. He's got to go.

You're right that there are people in the Democratic party that are to the left of you. But you vastly overestimate their number.

There's lots of extremist groups. Sovereign Citizens, Anarchists, Black Panthers, Nazis, White Nationalists, Scientologists, Communists, Westboro Baptists, FLDS. Occasionally one of them will get elected, like Ocasio-Cortez and Steve King. But all together, those groups are less than 5% of the population. None of those groups is a meaningful voting block in a national election.

Your claims to being a Center-Right Democrat are similar to a Republican saying, "I'm a center-left Republican because I don't want to abolish the EPA, implement a flat national sales tax, or send mothers who have abortions to jail."

There is not a single Democrat in the Senate who actually supports confiscatory taxation, state takeover of industries (other than health insurance), eliminating immigration controls, or reparations.

Similarly, there is not a single Republican in the Senate who actually supports 1950s laws on sodomy, eliminating all environmental regulations, or only allowing immigration from White countries.

(01-17-2019 07:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 07:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 01:56 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 01:42 PM)q5sys Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 12:13 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  2020 isn't about persuading voters to change their minds. Its about getting your people to the polls. Trump's base support has thankfully removed that false prize from Dem strategic thinking. No use tilting at windmills or letting people that aren't even your voters choose your nominees. If you support Trump now, you're not reachable in 2020.

And this is terrifying for anyone outside of the bubble. You're just ignoring people because they don't agree with you. These are people in your own party that you're willingly abandoning because they don't follow the approved group think.
Getting your people to the polls... Yea, how about all the Dems that are not in favor of the far lefts crazy socialist agenda? You just want to put up a Voter that'll appeal to the extreme side of the party.
I guess those democrats don't matter to you. You only want the 'correct' kind of Democrats voting.
You're literally ignoring half your party base and considering them not worthy of focusing on because they don't think the same way you do.

And amazingly, not only do you not see that as a bad thing... but you actually consider this a good thing.

(01-17-2019 12:13 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  And on the other side, people are so fed up with Trump that they really don't care who the alternative is.

If you'd get out of your echo chamber and talk to real people that live outside the liberal bubble... I think you'd quickly realize that's not the case.
I was in Starbucks the other day, and the the Barista and a customer were talking about how Trump isn't as bad as they thought he'd be, and they're generally not angry at how things have been going. That was in a Starbucks in Baltimore of all places. Baltimore, the place that has only had 1 Repub governor since the late 40s, and only 4 terms in the last century were not held the Dems.

The general person is not as angry with Trump as you have been led to believe.

(01-17-2019 01:27 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  As defined by Trump voters, there is no such thing as a 'moderate Democrat'. But the good news is that Democrats are winning in a lot of places thought to be 'off limits' to people called liberals.

I didn't vote for Trump. I define moderate Dems based on what the Democratic party has stood for. Those Dems still exist... it's the Party elite and the socialists that have decided that those Dems dont count, and shouldn't be considered Democrats anymore.
Yet another Purity Test that divides people.

Yea, I live in a liberal bubble in TEXAS and grew up in ALABAMA.

Did you vote for Hillary? Did you vote for a Democrat for Governor or the House or Senate in 2018? If not, well, I question if you're a Democrat.

We will see how mad people are at Trump. I think for at least 53% of them...the answer is....mad as you can possibly be.

Yes, Trump will win 40% of the white male vote in Maryland. So what?

As far as just playing to our base, especially when its enough to win.....well turnabout is fair play. No, we're not playing the election on the side of the table that the GOP wants us to play it. They just want to define the election on issues that favor them. No thank you.

---

Its just data talking. Look, Trump has doubled down on one demographic. Fine, we will concede that some of them are simply unreachable and work on crafting a campaign that will excite the people who WILL vote for us to show up.

If you aren't at the table, you're on the menu. Trump taught us that, and taught us that you can win doing it. If you show yourself to be unreachable, there little to be gained by catering to your whims, especially if those whims are not productive to those that are reachable. No, the Dems aren't going to nominate some Jill Stein type Kamikaze candidate that offends the overwhelming majority of actual Dems and Independents who overwhelmingly oppose her policies on foreign policy, the economy, and yes, on LGBT rights. Of course, the Dems will try to be a bit more subtle than Trump, if for no other reason than to avoid motivating the right wing to show up, but no, you're not here for the entree, so no you can't just show up and eat the dessert.

You and a good portion of the Democrats are doubling down on the extreme left of your party, so about 15% of the voters, ignoring the other half of Democrats and the 40+% of independents.

You're so caught in your bubble, you don't even understand there are more Independents than Republicans or Democrats.

This should you scare the f*ck out of you. I"m considered a CENTER-RIGHT Democrat. Not even close to the left of the party.

----

Most independents lean heavily towards one party or another. True independent swing voters are quite rare indeed. Where you get surprising results is when the electorate moves as part of a larger shift. Such as non-degreed white working class voters moving en masse to Trump in 2016 and suburbanites moving the to the Democrats in 2018
For 2020, the only issue the American people will be asking themselves is this....'do you want 4 more years of Trump?'

Among the far left they consider you center-right.
Swing voters aren't that rare. You just don't know them. I have a sister who has, among others, voted for McGovern, Reagan, Perot, Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Not sure who she voted for last time, but probably Hillary.

The only questions the Democrats will be asking voters is, "Do you want 4 more years of Trump?"
That approach didn't work very well for Mitt Romney and he lost decisively what was a winnable election.

Most people aren't in the bubble where they are all absorbed with a personality.

If Trump runs a good campaign, he will ask as James Carville would, "Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?"
At this point, 2 years in, the answer for the vast majority is unequivocably, yes.

(01-18-2019 12:58 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 10:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 07:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  This should you scare the f*ck out of you. I"m considered a CENTER-RIGHT Democrat. Not even close to the left of the party.

I'm not sure you'd be considered center-right in the communist party.

LOL. You consider Obama to be a Socialist. He's a capitalist and far to the right of some of y'all's precious right wing parties in Europe.

Just because you "might" be center-right in Europe doesn't mean you are here. The Democrats used to be like the "right wing" European parties like the Tories, but are moving rapidly closer to the left wing parties in Europe.

(01-18-2019 02:34 PM)bullet Wrote:  The only questions the Democrats will be asking voters is, "Do you want 4 more years of Trump?"
That approach didn't work very well for Mitt Romney and he lost decisively what was a winnable election.

Most people aren't in the bubble where they are all absorbed with a personality.

If Trump runs a good campaign, he will ask as James Carville would, "Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?"
At this point, 2 years in, the answer for the vast majority is unequivocably, yes.

w/o an infallible crystal ball handy, I'm fairly confident whoever emerges from the +20 smurf delegation, will be the one that pounds the 'orange man bad gavel' the hardest and the bestest....

the silly season of "TTT in '20" has now officially commenced....

(fyi: TTT is USM sarcastic slang for To The Top)

(01-18-2019 02:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 12:58 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 10:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 07:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  This should you scare the f*ck out of you. I"m considered a CENTER-RIGHT Democrat. Not even close to the left of the party.

I'm not sure you'd be considered center-right in the communist party.

LOL. You consider Obama to be a Socialist. He's a capitalist and far to the right of some of y'all's precious right wing parties in Europe.

Just because you "might" be center-right in Europe doesn't mean you are here. The Democrats used to be like the "right wing" European parties like the Tories, but are moving rapidly closer to the left wing parties in Europe.

I would argue that democrats are even further left than some left wingers in Europe in one respect--their support for redistribution of income and wealth, which are basically socialist/communist positions.

European income taxes are pretty much all less "progressive" than ours already, and in most cases at lower rates. Their social democrat system is based on providing a safety net for all, and everybody pays. Some redistribution may take place as a consequence, but that's not the primary focus. There is generally no "means testing" so everybody benefits--Sir Richard Branson has the same access to NHS as the homeless person sleeping on the street, if he wants it--and everybody pays--not only are income taxes generally less "progressive," but everybody also pays a "regressive" consumption tax. People like to point to Sweden's top individual tax rate (57% last I checked) and say that proves they have a redistributionist progressive tax system. But here's the thing. Up to roughly US$50,000, you're paying 32%, and from US$50,000-80,000 you're paying 52%, before the 57% rate kicks in at about US$80,000. So their system really is not very progressive, it's just that everybody pays a lot of taxes. And it becomes even less progressive when you consider that they also have a "regressive" 25% consumption tax. That high tax burden makes climbing up the economic totem pole very difficult. The people who do make it are generally entrepreneurs who have an idea that the put into a corporation that pays only 22%, they take out enough to live on, and let their wealth accumulate in the corporation. You're very unlikely to become wealthy there, but if you are satisfied living reasonably comfortably, their system may work for you. Unless and until you run afoul of their Muslim immigrant population.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/d...coalition/
Author doesn't think highly of Castro/Harris/Booker chances.

"...Castro may be the sort of liberal centrist voters might not dislike, but he lacks Obama’s charisma. Harris has the sort of tough demeanor and go-for-the-throat instincts that may endear her to Democrats who want to destroy Trump, but it’s hard to imagine her inspiring the kind of liberal affection Obama did. And Booker, who spent much of his career masquerading as a centrist before tilting hard to the left when he entered the Senate, couldn’t approach Obama’s appeal no matter what he claimed to believe.

That doesn’t mean any one of the three couldn’t win, of course. As Obama demonstrated, if you can emerge as the clear choice of minority voters, you gain an enormous advantage in many states where African-Americans or Hispanics make up a huge percentage of the Democratic primary electorate. But insofar as the Obama coalition was assembled by a man of unique political talents, efforts to put it back together are likely to prove fanciful."