If the Democrats nominate a slate full of Coleman Hughes clones, I would likely vote more Democrat than Republican against this slate of GOP.

Until that day, "Not Democrat" is the best strategy for the country.

This is an interesting argument. Here is a corollary:

1) Trump asks for ban on partial birth abortion.

2) Trump doesn't ask for ban on all abortions.

Therefore:

3) The only type of abortion Trump is against is partial birth abortions. If you are pro-choice, but against partial-birth abortions, you should vote for Trump related to Abortion.


Such a simple logical fallacy, there. It's almost comical.

Do you think that Matt Walsh would be against a law preventing trans surgery without parental consent?

I'll jump into the lions den.

I've voted D almost exclusively since 2008. I did vote for W back in 04.

I would agree, the left has gotten more left since back in the day and partisan politics is at an all time high. But I would also say the right has gone farther right as well. I consider myself a conservative liberal (make fun of that all you want, but it's how I feel and view things) I wish we had better candidates that more encompassed the things I support, but that's unfortunately not the world we live in.

And to any of you that say, well if you vote D that means that you support ALL their policies and view points, no I don't. Because, many of you in this very thread are saying you don't support everything an R supports or does, but vote for them anyway.

I'm not a commie Marxist (despite many of yall probably jumping in to say any vote D does that. Is the same true that any vote for R 100% blindly supports Trump and his, in my opinion, blatant corruption? I would say no.)

I don't support communism, I don't think trans people should compete in the biologically opposite sports or use their no biological bathroom. But also regardless of why they believe they are trans, doesn't mean they should be treated "less than." they are still a human, I choose to show compassion. I also don't like abortion. So I'm a bag of confusing viewpoints for yall I'm sure.

I would like more conservative democrats to emerge from the oblivion, but I won't hold my breath.

I also voted No for gerrymandering in Virginia, if I'm against gerrymandering for the Rs, I'm against it for the Ds.

So, I wanted to add a different flavor to this echo chamber. I'm not a psycho, idiot lunatic. I have my personal reasons for not supporting this current crop of Rs, and I'll keep those to myself (although I did vote for Miyares (R) this past election.)

OK, I'm ready for the judgment.

No judgement you have a right to vote the way you see it.

I would agree that both parties have moved farther left and farther right, but I also think that the voters on the left have moved MUCH farther than the right.

Just look at all the avowed socialist and communist in the party.

mccjames said:

---

No judgement you have a right to vote the way you see it.

I would agree that both parties have moved farther left and farther right, but I also think that the voters on the left have moved MUCH farther than the right.

Just look at all the avowed socialist and communist in the party.

---

I would argue that a large portion of the GOP has moved more left than right. Cornyn, Collins, Murkowski, et al. The MAGA faction of the party yes. While the entire democrat party has for sure moved left of left. Of course, most of that move I believe is a result of TDS.

Thank you for sharing. Since you say you've voted almost exclusively for D's since '08, is there a line that would have you abstain from voting for D's? Or a separate line that would have you vote for more R's?

A lot of your view points shared in that post make me think that there is no way a person with those views could vote for the current crop of D's. Most likely couldn't vote for the R's either but I would guess has more in common with today's crop of R's, since in my opinion the R's have drifted quite a bit left of where they were a couple of decades ago.

I would partially agree with both of yall, to say something like the left had moved 75% more left and the right has moved 40% more right (completely made up numbers for contextual reasons) I could agree with that

And to be honest, at times I don't really know what MAGA is. I feel like it is it's own entity, filled with contradictions.

I mean, I couldn't vote for the D attorney General candidate in VA this past November because of the comments he made about violence against another congressional person and their family. If an R would have said it, I would have been outraged, just I like I was when it came out he said that (also I think there was an affair too) so all that was a big NO for me.

And I saw lots of online chatter similar to what I've seen on this board along the lines of "I don't care what the D did or said, as long as it's against an R, I'll look the other way" which is not great and I see it here too unfortunately

Yea I have to wonder if the right has moved farther right or has the left just shifted farther away from right?

Also, I don't think I would abstain, too many people died for my right to vote.

I vote in primaries to try and get who I want on the ballot come November, doesn't always work out.

I think I'll be more comfortable potentially voting R by 2028 if somone like Rubio ran over a super socialist. But now if it's two types of crazy on the ballot, I'll cross that bridge when I get there. I can't support a vaccine denier/Quanon conspiracy theorist that think Putin is a solid leader. (I don't know there are actually people like that, I just threw in a bunch of red lines for me)

I have this conversation a lot, the thing we all really need to remember, nothing is static. These positions people have within their own parties may be completely unrecognizable in 20 years. Have both parties moved? Absolutely, and they will continue to flow away and come together at some point. I don't think this gap will last forever, but I'm also just trying to be hopeful

Great point and it's refreshing to see someone that votes for the left as being willing to see further than party politics. I strongly disagree with the D votes, but can respect your positions and willingness to discuss them openly and hopefully through discussion votes can more align with positions rather than party's.

Also agreed that it is frustrating seeing so many on the right willing to blindly pull the lever for an R, even if the R is a D masquerading as an R, just because of the letter by their name on the ballot. If people actually had a line and stuck with it, on both sides of the aisle, a lot of our political issues potentially could be minimized.

I really wonder how often it happens where the person knows absolutely nothing about the candidate but just sees that R or D next to their name.
As an experiment, I wonder what would happen, if on a ballot, those letters were removed? I'm sure chaos would ensue or what happened in Kentucky where around 1,000 voted for George Washington. Force people to do their own research?!? What a wild concept.

iceman08 said:

---

I really wonder how often it happens where the person knows absolutely nothing about the candidate but just sees that R or D next to their name.
As an experiment, I wonder what would happen, if on a ballot, those letters were removed? I'm sure chaos would ensue or what happened in Kentucky where around 1,000 voted for George Washington. Force people to do their own research?!? What a wild concept.

---

I have no evidence to back this up, but I would assume 9 out of every 10 voters could not tell you the major positions of the candidates they voted for other than the generic party platform. They defer nearly all political research to the party to vet candidates, which any sane person would say is not as trustworthy as we would hope.

I would love if party affiliation was removed from the ballots, but then campaigning just turns into who can market their name the best rather than who has the most preferred policies.

Ideally, people would take a political test of sorts similar to https://www.isidewith.com/political-quiz where policy preferences are calculated and matched with non-biased best fit candidates. Not a requirement to vote of course, but if our culture started putting in that extra effort before voting it would pay off immensely.

Nuance isn't allowed here, pick a color and blindly follow it calling the other side Nazis or Communists

And actually get people to pay attention in the primaries instead of the most extreme 10% decide who the 2 candidates are

You can't tell me what to do! Last time I checked this was America!

Ment to quote you above, I blame my phone.

Everybody is free to do the moral calculus and draw the line where they want, but if you are unwilling to ever withhold your vote from your party of choice in the general for fear of what happens if the other guys win, then you've effectively abdicated any ability to hold your party accountable. It's tough to filter out the crooks and the freaks if the candidates and the primary voters know there's little-to-no penalty in the general for being a crook and a freak.

iceman08 said:

---

I really wonder how often it happens where the person knows absolutely nothing about the candidate but just sees that R or D next to their name.
As an experiment, I wonder what would happen, if on a ballot, those letters were removed? I'm sure chaos would ensue or what happened in Kentucky where around 1,000 voted for George Washington. Force people to do their own research?!? What a wild concept.

---

Harris County is a prime example of people voting for the letter by the name and nothing else. And it is an absolute shthole run county because of that very reason.

I've long argued that any political affiliation should be removed from candidacy. It will never happen, but it would at least force people to actually listen to the candidate and not default to party lines. But that would also require a populace that isn't absolutely stupid, and again - never going to happen.

I also disagree, mostly anyway, with your sentiment that the right has moved further right. I don't think it has - its the fact that the left has moved so far left that anything looks further right from where they stand. If anything the right has moved left as well, but at a much smaller rate.

Look at it this way - JFK would be banned from the Democrat party today. About half of the republican party would think he's too conservative as well.

iceman08 said:

---

I really wonder how often it happens where the person knows absolutely nothing about the candidate but just sees that R or D next to their name.
As an experiment, I wonder what would happen, if on a ballot, those letters were removed? I'm sure chaos would ensue or what happened in Kentucky where around 1,000 voted for George Washington. Force people to do their own research?!? What a wild concept.

---

Primary election this week in Georgia. But during the same election was a general election for judges. (Yeah, screwy.) Anyway, for state judges no party affiliation is on the ballot. Now Dems went hard to get two GOP incumbents off of the state supreme court. But without the party designations, the incumbents easily won.

Anecdotal, I know but would appear that name recognition (as a consequence of incumbency) is just as persuaive as party designation.

schmellba99 said:

---

iceman08 said:

---

I really wonder how often it happens where the person knows absolutely nothing about the candidate but just sees that R or D next to their name.
As an experiment, I wonder what would happen, if on a ballot, those letters were removed? I'm sure chaos would ensue or what happened in Kentucky where around 1,000 voted for George Washington. Force people to do their own research?!? What a wild concept.

---

Harris County is a prime example of people voting for the letter by the name and nothing else. And it is an absolute shthole run county because of that very reason.

I've long argued that any political affiliation should be removed from candidacy. It will never happen, but it would at least force people to actually listen to the candidate and not default to party lines. But that would also require a populace that isn't absolutely stupid, and again - never going to happen.

I also disagree, mostly anyway, with your sentiment that the right has moved further right. I don't think it has - its the fact that the left has moved so far left that anything looks further right from where they stand. If anything the right has moved left as well, but at a much smaller rate.

Look at it this way - JFK would be banned from the Democrat party today. About half of the republican party would think he's too conservative as well.

---

So, just to get this clear, has basically everything in the US moved left, full stop? Has anything moved to the right?

That's why I mentioned nothing was static and I do agree with you that stuff is moving but have we all as a country gotten more left leaning, period?

All just my opinion but I think both parties have moved left overall, but there are parts of the GOP party that have moved right. These small parts that have moved right tend to get more focus even though the majority of the GOP is moving left, thus it appears the GOP as a whole is moving right.

Also, the range of acceptable political ideologies is widening overall which is not a good thing. It used to be that both sides for the most part agreed on end goals but differed on how to get there, thus compromise.
Now, both sides have a fairly large discrepency in what end goals they are aiming for thus making compromise difficult. Hence people's desire for team politics and voting for anyone with the correct letter next to their name....

iceman08 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

iceman08 said:

---

I really wonder how often it happens where the person knows absolutely nothing about the candidate but just sees that R or D next to their name.
As an experiment, I wonder what would happen, if on a ballot, those letters were removed? I'm sure chaos would ensue or what happened in Kentucky where around 1,000 voted for George Washington. Force people to do their own research?!? What a wild concept.

---

Harris County is a prime example of people voting for the letter by the name and nothing else. And it is an absolute shthole run county because of that very reason.

I've long argued that any political affiliation should be removed from candidacy. It will never happen, but it would at least force people to actually listen to the candidate and not default to party lines. But that would also require a populace that isn't absolutely stupid, and again - never going to happen.

I also disagree, mostly anyway, with your sentiment that the right has moved further right. I don't think it has - its the fact that the left has moved so far left that anything looks further right from where they stand. If anything the right has moved left as well, but at a much smaller rate.

Look at it this way - JFK would be banned from the Democrat party today. About half of the republican party would think he's too conservative as well.

---

So, just to get this clear, has basically everything in the US moved left, full stop? Has anything moved to the right?

That's why I mentioned nothing was static and I do agree with you that stuff is moving but have we all as a country gotten more left leaning, period?

---

You can always pick a data point or two and say it's moved right, but by in large - your last sentence is correct. The drift has been left and it's not even really close, both socially and politically.

I'm a conservative and will continue to vote that way unless the party somehow switches to becoming as radical as the Democrat party is currently and Democrats move to the center. We all know that isn't happening.

The only instance that I'd even slightly consider voting for a Democrat would be if they devise a clear cut plan to fix our awful healthcare system. Not just promise to do it, but have a plan in place and guarantee that it will be executed on day 1. I've been a type 1 diabetic for 35 years now and pay my own insurance and the monthly costs are outrageous. They were under Obamacare as well.

I'm all in favor of passing the SAVE Act before the midterms, however, if Republicans remain in control of all branches of government after the upcoming election and nothing is done on healthcare, I'm going to be awfully disappointed.

I don't understand how one can consciously intentionally vote for democrats but say they are against communism or keep voting for democrats if they don't think we need wide open borders with unfettered and unvetted mass migration to the tune of +20 million in 4 years. Why do you want these things, and if you don't but vote for them anyway, how is voting R for smaller government and lower taxes worse than communism and open borders in your view?

oh no said:

---

I don't understand how one can consciously intentionally vote for democrats but say they are against communism or keep voting for democrats if they don't think we need wide open borders with unfettered and unvetted mass migration to the tune of +20 million in 4 years. Why do you want these things, and if you don't but vote for them anyway, how is voting R for smaller government and lower taxes worse than communism and open borders in your view?

---

Because in my opinion, the current Rs don't want small government. Frankly I feel like they want to control more and have developed a more "big brother" view recently. I think the Rs of even 15 years ago are completely different than what we have today. And they have blown up the deficit just like the Ds.

I don't have a lot of faith either side is going to really tackle our spending (and interest problem) until it's so dire that everything has fall apart. But that's also unfortunately most human nature to ignore a problem until it is quite literally on your doorstep and not just your neighbors problem.

And I don't want to derail this thread, but as somone who has worked in immigration under multiple administrations, the open borders talking point isn't reality.

Deputy Travis Junior said:

---

The "voting patterns is all that matters" view has gained a lot of steam the past few decades, but character is vitally important for long term sustainability. Say we elect politicians who give handouts to friends and supporters, or look the other way when a party priority is implemented poorly, or whatever. After a few decades, we've built up an unauditable mess that funnels our tax dollars to special interests, NGOs, fake autism clinics, or Minneapolis learing centers. USAID's budget was $50B/year and we didn't know where huge chunks of that money were even going. That was by design and it's the result of sending awful people to DC.

Put another way, our congress typically passes bills that are thousands of pages long. If we put corrupt, venal politicians in office, what are the odds that they'll bury riders in The Brother Karamazov that enrich themselves at our expense? What are the odds that they fund an agency that hires a consultant that vastly overpays a subcontractor owned by the politician's cousin/wife/neighbor?

Demand more. If he's ****ed 15 women while married and then lied about it, he'll be happy to **** us and lie about it too.

---

Well said. And also why I'll never vote for Paxton.

I've also noticed a major uptick in ****ty people getting voted in since trump was elected. People like MTG, George Santos, etc. And people will actually run cover for them just because they're R.

Ragoo said:

---

If there isnt a candidate I can support I abstain.

---

Same.

Jeeper79 said:

---

Deputy Travis Junior said:

---

The "voting patterns is all that matters" view has gained a lot of steam the past few decades, but character is vitally important for long term sustainability. Say we elect politicians who give handouts to friends and supporters, or look the other way when a party priority is implemented poorly, or whatever. After a few decades, we've built up an unauditable mess that funnels our tax dollars to special interests, NGOs, fake autism clinics, or Minneapolis learing centers. USAID's budget was $50B/year and we didn't know where huge chunks of that money were even going. That was by design and it's the result of sending awful people to DC.

Put another way, our congress typically passes bills that are thousands of pages long. If we put corrupt, venal politicians in office, what are the odds that they'll bury riders in The Brother Karamazov that enrich themselves at our expense? What are the odds that they fund an agency that hires a consultant that vastly overpays a subcontractor owned by the politician's cousin/wife/neighbor?

Demand more. If he's ****ed 15 women while married and then lied about it, he'll be happy to **** us and lie about it too.

---

Well said. And also why I'll never vote for Paxton.

I've also noticed a major uptick in ****ty people getting voted in since trump was elected. People like MTG, George Santos, etc. And people will actually run cover for them just because they're R.

---

eh. Jimmy Carter was a good person. Had strong morals. Terrible terrible president. Like all time worst. Bad decisions spineless terrible. But he was a good person. It ain't always about being a good person.

iceman08 said:

---

And I don't want to derail this thread, but as somone who has worked in immigration under multiple administrations, the open borders talking point isn't reality.

---

Yes. I won't believe what we all witnessed under Biden. Lol

Ragoo said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

Deputy Travis Junior said:

---

The "voting patterns is all that matters" view has gained a lot of steam the past few decades, but character is vitally important for long term sustainability. Say we elect politicians who give handouts to friends and supporters, or look the other way when a party priority is implemented poorly, or whatever. After a few decades, we've built up an unauditable mess that funnels our tax dollars to special interests, NGOs, fake autism clinics, or Minneapolis learing centers. USAID's budget was $50B/year and we didn't know where huge chunks of that money were even going. That was by design and it's the result of sending awful people to DC.

Put another way, our congress typically passes bills that are thousands of pages long. If we put corrupt, venal politicians in office, what are the odds that they'll bury riders in The Brother Karamazov that enrich themselves at our expense? What are the odds that they fund an agency that hires a consultant that vastly overpays a subcontractor owned by the politician's cousin/wife/neighbor?

Demand more. If he's ****ed 15 women while married and then lied about it, he'll be happy to **** us and lie about it too.

---

Well said. And also why I'll never vote for Paxton.

I've also noticed a major uptick in ****ty people getting voted in since trump was elected. People like MTG, George Santos, etc. And people will actually run cover for them just because they're R.

---

eh. Jimmy Carter was a good person. Had strong morals. Terrible terrible president. Like all time worst. Bad decisions spineless terrible. But he was a good person. It ain't always about being a good person.

---

That doesn't negate anything I said. Competency should absolutely be a minimum requirement. But so should be a decent human.

Jeeper79 said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

Deputy Travis Junior said:

---

The "voting patterns is all that matters" view has gained a lot of steam the past few decades, but character is vitally important for long term sustainability. Say we elect politicians who give handouts to friends and supporters, or look the other way when a party priority is implemented poorly, or whatever. After a few decades, we've built up an unauditable mess that funnels our tax dollars to special interests, NGOs, fake autism clinics, or Minneapolis learing centers. USAID's budget was $50B/year and we didn't know where huge chunks of that money were even going. That was by design and it's the result of sending awful people to DC.

Put another way, our congress typically passes bills that are thousands of pages long. If we put corrupt, venal politicians in office, what are the odds that they'll bury riders in The Brother Karamazov that enrich themselves at our expense? What are the odds that they fund an agency that hires a consultant that vastly overpays a subcontractor owned by the politician's cousin/wife/neighbor?

Demand more. If he's ****ed 15 women while married and then lied about it, he'll be happy to **** us and lie about it too.

---

Well said. And also why I'll never vote for Paxton.

I've also noticed a major uptick in ****ty people getting voted in since trump was elected. People like MTG, George Santos, etc. And people will actually run cover for them just because they're R.

---

eh. Jimmy Carter was a good person. Had strong morals. Terrible terrible president. Like all time worst. Bad decisions spineless terrible. But he was a good person. It ain't always about being a good person.

---

That doesn't negate anything I said. Competency should absolutely be a minimum requirement. But so should be a decent human.

---

for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

Competency is and will always be #1 because each of us has some moral flaw.

iceman08 said:

---

oh no said:

---

I don't understand how one can consciously intentionally vote for democrats but say they are against communism or keep voting for democrats if they don't think we need wide open borders with unfettered and unvetted mass migration to the tune of +20 million in 4 years. Why do you want these things, and if you don't but vote for them anyway, how is voting R for smaller government and lower taxes worse than communism and open borders in your view?

---

Because in my opinion, the current Rs don't want small government. Frankly I feel like they want to control more and have developed a more "big brother" view recently. I think the Rs of even 15 years ago are completely different than what we have today. And they have blown up the deficit just like the Ds.

I don't have a lot of faith either side is going to really tackle our spending (and interest problem) until it's so dire that everything has fall apart. But that's also unfortunately most human nature to ignore a problem until it is quite literally on your doorstep and not just your neighbors problem.

---

I don't like W's patriot act fallout. I don't like Trump 45's covid spending. But comparing the D's who are openly socialist, want nationalized federalized healthcare, call for disinformation censorship czars, and only want to raise taxes and add regulations and create industry via regulation that also grows government- like the green revolution, green new deals, green industry- to Rs and saying they're same at growing the size of government doesn't seem genuine. R's being ineffective at shrinking government is not the same as socialists intentionally growing it.

iceman08 said:

---

And I don't want to derail this thread, but as somone who has worked in immigration under multiple administrations, the open borders talking point isn't reality.

---

start another thread then. I want to know why I should not believe my lying eyes. I want to know why we needed to invite +20million in 4 short years. Why every phony amnesty claim was let in to be decided later. Why was all of that necessary?