Anteater

Trump was registered as a Democrat at one point, so I understand to an extent what jwb is talking about.

__________________
Anteater's 21 Fav Albums Of 2020

Anteater's Daily Tune Roulette

TheBig3

Well feel free to explain it to me because I don't see how that's relevant. The policies that the GOP promotes - regardless of the candidate - are designed to create an oligarchy.

It might be fair to say that depending on the candidate, the Democrats also create a wealthier upper class, but as we saw with Clinton, the working family also so an increase in wealth.

I guess I don't really care about the candidates as much as most, because we've got some major core fundamental problems in the US that the republicans think can be solved with deregulation and tax breaks (to the wealthy) that we've been handing out since 1982.

Anteater

My point of view about the Republican Party is that at one point they were the better party between the two major ones that we have, but due to numerous factors have lost their way over time, which culminated with Reagan and the first Bush administration. Then Clinton brought neoliberalism to the forefront of American politics and the GOP learned a thing or two from that as well.

That being said, I think Teddy Roosevelt is a good example (in general) of the better aspects of conservatism when you couple them with a more empathetic and logical approach to governance.

__________________
Anteater's 21 Fav Albums Of 2020

Anteater's Daily Tune Roulette

Frownland

Solid hook bro, keep repeating it and we've got ourselves a hit single.

__________________

Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.

jwb

it was the same argument before with Romney, Bush, etc.

It's not that I don't see a difference between the parties, it's that the Dems take it for granted that these boogeyman tactics will force your hand to vote for them even when they consistently offer up mediocre candidates.

This is by design. They did everything in their power to make the argument that only Biden could beat Trump when Sanders was still in the running, and I see voting for him on that basis as validating that narrative.

To me it's blatantly obvious that the current conversation in the Democratic party is further to the left/more populist than it would have been if Hillary won.

OccultHawk

There’s never been a time more ripe for a third party socialist. Not Sanders either. He needs to drop Biden and endorse someone young and radical that doesn’t own two mansions, one in one of the most coveted locations in Vermont.

__________________

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Member of the Year & Journal of the Year Champion

Behold the Writing of THE LEGEND:

https://www.musicbanter.com/members-...p-lighter.html

Anteater

So basically Randall Flagg from The Stand minus the cool supernatural powers?

__________________
Anteater's 21 Fav Albums Of 2020

Anteater's Daily Tune Roulette

jwb

It would sink Biden and Trump would win but I sorta agree.

The fact is that it's probably going to take several failed attempts to build up the sort of momentum necessary for either a viable third party option or just a more populist Democratic option like Sanders on a national scale.

So the lesser of two evils calculus that the status quo uses to shame third parties and other options basically ensures they will never get off the ground if they submit to that pressure.

In fact the time is as ripe as it is right now both because of the success of Trump and the momentum Sanders built up in 2016.

OccultHawk

Unusual **** happens during unusual times

__________________

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Member of the Year & Journal of the Year Champion

Behold the Writing of THE LEGEND:

https://www.musicbanter.com/members-...p-lighter.html

TheBig3

The intentions of the Democrats, real or fabricated, also don't matter in my mind. What matters is the movement of the policy positions.

As for whether or not Clinton would have made the Dems more conservative, I can see that happening in Foreign Policy, but not domestic policy. I'm curious as to what you think she would have been more conservative on in the U.S.I'm just going to say up front that I don't think Clinton (Hillary I mean) deserves nearly as much hatred as she got. She was considered a commie radical in 1993 and suddenly she's Richard Nixon. This country has schizophrenia.

Bush and Romney are different things, so I'll make it clear how I see them:

1. Romney was my Governor and I didn't mind him. I thought he was pretty solid, introducing our own version of the ACA here in Massachusetts before running for the Presidency. If Romney had won, it's possible he could have been a good President, but three things made me vote for Obama in 2012:
A. It was a referendum vote on Obama, and I liked him.
B. It was a "repeal the ACA vote" so I voted for the ACA
C. Romney constantly referred to immigrants as "Illegals" and I hated that so I voted against him.

Barring those, I still would have worried if the Trump tax cuts were in play with Romney which I'm very much against. Hard to say if A-C wasn't on the table if I'd have considered Romney. If I'm being honest, I probably wouldn't have. I liked Obama a lot.

2. With Bush, I'm just going to say people forget things too quickly. If anything, everyone was saying there was zero difference between Bush and Gore, and in hindsight, I hope people realize how ****ing stupid they were. I wasn't old enough to vote in 2000 by about 3 weeks. Having said that, I would have voted for Ralph Nader if I were. Thankfully the voting age saved me from my embarrassment.

But Bush v. Gore is a telling election for both 2016 and 2020. During the election, they were the same. Bush won and started an endless war. Gore went on to make Climate Change a part of the mainstream conversation. I'm sorry if you're offended by people who don't see them as "the same" are history agnostic.