Jump to content

I'm repulsed to say: we need more conservative Democrats


Craig234
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm a progressive Democrat and I want progressives to take over the Democratic Party. But.

 

The real issues for our country right now are the plutocrats taking over the country.

 

And they do that by finding issues they can pander to and get votes.

You hate gays? OK. You a sucker who will vote for someone who says your gun rights are under threat? OK. You a sucker for jingoistic patriotism and flag-waving? OK. Religious right pandering? OK. Etc.

 

What we have is tens of millions of people who vote Republicans over secondary issues - gay, guns, religion, thinking Democrats are communists, and many other such things. They don't understand that what they're actually voting for are plutocrats who are pandering to them to get those votes.

So what Democrats need to do is to worry about plutocracy, and give people Democratic candidates on ANY OTHER ISSUE THEY WANT. So if voters are going to vote for a pro-gun gay-hating candidate no matter what anyway, give them a pro-gun gay-hating Democrat WHO IS ON THE RIGHT SIDE AGAINST PLUTOCRACY.

 

That's not the Democrat I want. But it's the Democrat we need instead of a Republican.


Republicans are destroying the country. We have squeezed the American people not only of their money but over $20 trillion more in debt to hand it all to the wealthy by undertaxing them. They are implementing election cheating, and appointing a radical takeover of the judiciary to destroy the constitution. The only way I'm seeing to beat that is to create more diverse Democrats.

 

One problem is, most Democrats don't understand this. They look at the type of Democrat who might win in a red state, and say hell no, that person is a jerk and has wrong positions. And so the Republican wins, over and over and over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your insight into the situation seems spot on. If LGBT issues are the most significant issues of the Democratic Party then a living minimum wage, GOP Gerrymandering, Social Security, Single Payer healthcare and truly fair taxation be damned. 

 

The working class families of the country are facing further decline with neither party offering them anything more than lip service. Of course the Tea Party's lip service was much more suited to those voters. Those working class families of middle America are more afraid of the Progressive Anti-Christ manufactured by Faux Noooz than they are of their decline to 3d world poverty. The Democrats have failed miserably in offering something meaningful to Main St, Podunk, U.S.A. And failed miserably in slamming home the fact that the GOP's highest priorities are making the wealthy wealthier and everyone else poorer by way of taxes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for your post. I have heard the opposite many times. I have been told many times to vote for the democrat who doesn't care about the plutocracy, instead compromises with the GOP on social issues. Yes the social issues are important, but the over riding factor is the plutocracy. Unless that is stopped we won't have anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Craig234 said:

What we have is tens of millions of people who vote Republicans over secondary issues - gay, guns, religion, thinking Democrats are communists, and many other such things. They don't understand that what they're actually voting for are plutocrats who are pandering to them to get those votes.

So what Democrats need to do is to worry about plutocracy, and give people Democratic candidates on ANY OTHER ISSUE THEY WANT. So if voters are going to vote for a pro-gun gay-hating candidate no matter what anyway, give them a pro-gun gay-hating Democrat WHO IS ON THE RIGHT SIDE AGAINST PLUTOCRACY.

 

I am 100% in favor of this, if it can be implemented. 

 

That said, I see a problem with this approach because of the way the Democratic Party is split.  The Democratic Party today is partly composed of Neo Liberals, who take corporate bribes and as a result, vote for legislation promoting economic inequality, while, at the same time voting Liberal on wedge issues, which plutocrats don't particularly care about, like LGBT rights, Gun Control and Abortion.  By contrast, Progressive Democratic legislators raise as much money as they can from their constituents and take as few corporate bribes as possible ...  Leaving them free to cast their legislative votes in favor of both social and economic issues, on the left.

 

It is unlikely that a Democratic elected official would be anti-LGBT and/or anti-abortion and still vote against legislation promoting plutocracy.   Any legislator who votes Conservative on social issues usually votes Conservative on economic issues also, which describes most Republicans.

 

Please don't get me wrong.  Halting and reversing the descent of the USA into a Plutocracy, composed of a few hundred ultra-rich families but the vast majority dirt poor, is the number one issue facing The Nation today.  FDR said it well, back in the 1930s, saying  "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much;  It is whether we provide enough for those who have little".

 

 

The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much it is whether we provide enough for those who have little. Franklin D. Roosevelt
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/franklin_d_roosevelt_163168
The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much it is whether we provide enough for those who have little. Franklin D. Roosevelt
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/franklin_d_roosevelt_163168
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, bludog said:

 

I am 100% in favor of this, if it can be implemented. 

 

That said, I see a problem with this approach because of the way the Democratic Party is split.  The Democratic Party today is partly composed of Neo Liberals, who take corporate bribes and as a result, vote for legislation promoting economic inequality, while, at the same time voting Liberal on wedge issues, which plutocrats don't particularly care about, like LGBT rights, Gun Control and Abortion.  By contrast, Progressive Democratic legislators raise as much money as they can from their constituents and take as few corporate bribes as possible ...  Leaving them free to cast their legislative votes in favor of both social and economic issues, on the left.

 

It is unlikely that a Democratic elected official would be anti-LGBT and/or anti-abortion and still vote against legislation promoting plutocracy.   Any legislator who votes Conservative on social issues usually votes Conservative on economic issues also, which describes most Republicans.

 

Please don't get me wrong.  Halting and reversing the descent of the USA into a Plutocracy, composed of a few hundred ultra-rich families but the vast majority dirt poor, is the number one issue facing The Nation today.  FDR said it well, back in the 1930s, saying  "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much;  It is whether we provide enough for those who have little".

 

 

The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much it is whether we provide enough for those who have little. Franklin D. Roosevelt
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/franklin_d_roosevelt_163168
The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much it is whether we provide enough for those who have little. Franklin D. Roosevelt
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/franklin_d_roosevelt_163168

 

Yes, to clarify, the corporatist Democrats are NOT who I'm saying to include - they're the ones I'm saying to fight. I mean on the wedge issue, the cultural, social issues.

 

I think there's a point of confusion here between what you see in current candidates, and what I'm suggesting.

Yes, there IS a high correlation between social conservatives and plutocrats, because the only people running as social conservatives seem to either be the plutocrats pandering for votes, or at least people willing to side with the plutocrats for whatever reason.

What I'm suggesting is something you don't see now much - anti-plutocrat social conservative candidates. Yes, this can work - there's a reason why donald stain ran all kinds of left wing messages like 'drain the swamp' and 'protect Medicare' and 'protect the Middle class' and 'tax the rich more', and Paul Ryan lies that his policies HELP the poor.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey guys, 

I'm seeing the repeated use of the word "plutocrat" as well as multiple instances basically saying that suggest that all conservatives hate gays, are religious and will vote for anyone that panders to them and I was wondering if you could tell me how that's different from Democrats. See, I don't lean hard one way or another, but I do have reservations about both sides. So again I ask, how is that different from politicians that hate the upper class, promote 1000+ genders and claim that they'll give the lower class what "they deserve" like Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, monarch said:

 See, I don't lean hard one way or another, but I do have reservations about both sides. So again I ask, how is that different from politicians that hate the upper class, promote 1000+ genders and claim that they'll give the lower class what "they deserve" like Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton?

 

You say,  "I don't lean hard one way or another".  So you're not a Liberal by your own definition.   And yet you made your very first post in a sub-forum called the "Liberal's Only Room" where you are obviously not supposed to post.  Please do not post in the LO Rm any more.  You are welcome to post in any other part of the site including No Holds Barred, where many, on both sides will be happy to answer your question, in their own ways.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, monarch said:

Hey guys, 

I'm seeing the repeated use of the word "plutocrat" as well as multiple instances basically saying that suggest that all conservatives hate gays, are religious and will vote for anyone that panders to them and I was wondering if you could tell me how that's different from Democrats. See, I don't lean hard one way or another, but I do have reservations about both sides. So again I ask, how is that different from politicians that hate the upper class, promote 1000+ genders and claim that they'll give the lower class what "they deserve" like Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton?

 

I'll answer your post despite the 'not liberal' issue of it. If you have to ask how Republicans and Democrats are different on plutocracy or the social conservative issues I mentioned, it shows a 'welcome to our planet' type of being either uninformed or misinformed.

 

I've long said, plutocracy is the only real agenda of the Republican Party. All the others are issues used to get votes in order to have power.

 

Some Democrats to varying degrees - and some pretty far - are big-donor driven and beholden as well - but there's a huge difference between the parties nonetheless. Things like the Busn tax cuts for the rich would not have been passed by Democrats, and things like the Consumer Protection Bureau or ACA Democrats passed wouldn't have been by Republicans.

 

But then, your question doesn't even make sense, when you ask how a politician for plutocracy and against understanding sexuality is different than the opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok so I know I'm not supposed to be here, but HIGHKEY, you didn't answer my question. I'm getting the vibe that you're probably more liberal, and not so much conservative, but I still respect your snowflake opinion. Now, I wonder why would you assume that I'm mis/uninformed? I wasn't tryna trigger you, I was just wondering how you see the differences between liberals and conservatives. As you can see, this is my first time on one of these forums so I'm just trying ot see what they're all about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

monarch:---  This is your last warning to stop posting in the LO Rm.  If not, action will be taken.  You are welcome to post in No Holds Barred, or any other part of the site, but not the Liberal's Only Room. 

 

I've given you extra leeway, up to now, since you've obviously  never used a site like this before.  But now the time is up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just one question and then I promise that I won't do it again: Isn't the left all about diversity? Isn't it all about accepting differences?

 

Because when you threaten to ban me for asking a few questions, it makes me wonder if may diversity of skin color is really all you care about, because it OBVIOUSLY is not intellectual diversity or the diversity of ideas and opinions.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your statement is similar to terrorists using the freedoms of liberty in an effort to shut freedom down ....  But far less serious.  If you want answers to your question, I suggest you start a thread in NHB.  Otherwise, I've had it with you.  One more post in the Liberal's Only Room and you will get a nice little suspension.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the hell are you talking about? You just compared me, a fairly moderate, patriotic, lover of America to a terrorist, who if you didn't know, are generally not those things. Actually never those things at all.

 

And really, you've "had it with me"? I've literally posted less than a half dozen times with even fewer questions and you can't handle answering civilly and keeping your composure if there even was any to begin with? Gotcha. Snowflake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...