Why Can't The Left Win?

[Lexicus]

To me, 'moderate' is someone who can become convinced through reasonable discourse.

In that case, there are very few moderates in the entire human species.

The fact that i have to come up with a name to prove that not every republican is a racist or anti gay is hilarious.

I just want you to name one Illinois Republican you voted for who isn't anti-gay and/or racist. I don't see why that is so difficult. I am perfectly willing to admit that individual Republicans are not racist or bigoted against LGBTQ people. However given that both racism and anti-LGBTQ stuff are built into the platform I think it is accurate to say that all Republicans are either actively bigoted against LGBTQ people or willing to tolerate such bigotry in order to accomplish other political goals.

Indeed, I think you basically have admitted that at the top of this page:

The state is broken. I think that takes priority.

I also have a strong suspicion "the state is broken" is just a talking point most likely designed to attack public sector workers. That is definitely the game the New Jersey Republicans played, using the state's budget crisis which they caused by refusing to raise taxes as a pretext to attack the state's teachers.

 

[AmazonQueen]

To me, 'moderate' is someone who can become convinced through reasonable discourse.

To me a moderate is someone who although they might have an opinion on a subject wouldn't see it as an issue they would fight for.
Take Women's Suffrage, I've seen it argued that the extremist Suffragettes were knocking on an open door, many moderates accepted the principle of women voting.
What I doubt is that given the diehard reactionary opposition to Women's Suffrage many moderates would've fought for it without the pressure from more radical elements.
I tend to think moderate reformism won't happen without extremist pressure.

 

[sophie]

The fact that i have to come up with a name to prove that not every republican is a racist or anti gay is hilarious.

The claim was that, irrespective of other (allegedly desirable) policies, the fact that the Republican Party as an institution has held two core positions as regards policy and platform: 1) outright contempt, or 2) silence (thereby enabling the contempt of others) makes them prima facie disqualifying as a party meriting support. Your response is "that is not the extent of the Republican position." And we were asking for examples of that position not representing the Republican platform. That is not coterminous with "some Republican politicians are ok with the idea of gay people existing I guess."

 

[Cloud_Strife]

No, I never said that. I said not all republicans are racists or anti gay. There have been black or gay republicans in congress. So obviously all aren't.
That's the only point I'm making.

They are willing to tolerate literal racists and bigots in their midst.

They enable them and that makes them complicit in the pain and suffering those bigots cause. You own that when you join a party like that, just like the Democrats own the pain that they've caused, except i am more than willing to acknowledge it for both but you have an issue doing so, clearly, which is why you are so quick to try to defend the dignity of Republicans.

I'm sorry, but the gop were more than happy to either be racist or to tolerate those racists, if not outright ignore them. That's a fact and nothing you say can change that immutable, historical fact. They are outright hostile to me, but yet you vote for them, knowing full well what they intend to do to me and others like me, but yet you are so mystified why i am so hostile to you?

What am i doing to endanger your existence, where am i working towards making your lot worse? You impose it upon others, even if it is done for good intentions, and expect them to be happy and content with that, that is the real point here and i honestly don't blame you for having or holding such a position, but my frustration is that there seems to be a fundamental disconnect between merely voicing an opinion and actively working towards achieving a desired outcome from a political party.

 

[Gorbles]

No, I never said that. I said not all republicans are racists or anti gay. There have been black or gay republicans in congress. So obviously all aren't.
That's the only point I'm making.

. . . the fact that some Republicans that belong to a marginalised demographic exist, or have existed, in Congress, in no way absolves the party of anything. This is a literal use of the "they have a gay friend, they can't be homophobic" excuse. Nor is it impossible for a gay Republican to not be racist, or a black Republican homophobic. People can be bigoted in different ways, even if they're marginalised themselves!

Also Cloud makes a very good point (it's also why I said using Democrats as an excuse doesn't help). Nobody's saying that Democrats can't be bigoted! You were the one defending the Republican party against bigotry. If I've misread you horribly, do say, but that's the impression I'm getting.

 

[sophie]

. . . the fact that some Republicans that belong to a marginalised demographic exist, or have existed, in Congress, in no way absolves the party of anything. This is a literal use of the "they have a gay friend, they can't be homophobic" excuse. Nor is it impossible for a gay Republican to not be racist, or a black Republican homophobic. People can be bigoted in different ways, even if they're marginalised themselves!

Yeah, just look at Biden, who is currently revealing himself (big surprise), to still be a massive racist despite spending 8 years working closely with such eminent black men as "My Boss" and "Rabrock."

 

[Lexicus]

Yeah, just look at Biden, who is currently revealing himself (big surprise), to still be a massive racist despite spending 8 years working closely with such eminent black men as "My Boss" and "Rabrock."

The weirdest thing about Biden being an unreconstructed racist is that he will probably win the nomination because black voters in the South still overwhelmingly back him.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

I don't support the Democrats because i want too or think they are inherently better or even neccessarily any better economically, but for my own safety, my continued survival i do not have the luxary of not voting and not openly advocating and pushing back against any attempts and i view people who vote Republican as an existential threat to me, when they support the same people who want to make it harder for me to live. There can be no compromise for as long as they continue to be an existential threat.

That's as simple as it gets, when it comes to my aversion to the right.

 

[rah]

No the state is broken, our legislators have been owned by the unions for a long time. And then they didn't properly fund the pensions and put in constitutional amendment to lock in their sins. It needs to be fixed.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

So you think others potentially suffering as a result of enabling/electing a Republican is a price worth paying then?

What else are we supposed to think about this?

You're literally compromising peoples rights and existence on this issue man, it's a bit gross, it's a bit grody and you own the implications of what your vote entails. This isn't bullying, this is you being held to account for your actions man, it's you being judged for whom you have tolerated and enabled, just as i judge Democrats for whom they hang with.

 

[Lexicus]

It needs to be fixed.

But not by raising your taxes, I gather?

 

[rah]

They already did that. and didn't fix the problem.

And for the record. I agree with almost all of your accusation of the Republicans. As I've said, that's why I don't self define myself as one anymore. I vote for candidates, not parties. (unless it's whoever is running against trump in 2020)
But not every Republican is a racist of anti gay. Period.
Anyone that thinks that is not anyone I can have a reasonable discussion with. So I will not.
And the Dems have screwed Illinois for years to come. (the republicans aren't blameless)
But Madigan is the main culprit. He has ruled the state for decades. The blame is at his feet.

 

[El_Machinae]

To me a moderate is someone who although they might have an opinion on a subject wouldn't see it as an issue they would fight for.
Take Women's Suffrage, I've seen it argued that the extremist Suffragettes were knocking on an open door, many moderates accepted the principle of women voting.
What I doubt is that given the diehard reactionary opposition to Women's Suffrage many moderates would've fought for it without the pressure from more radical elements.
I tend to think moderate reformism won't happen without extremist pressure.

Yeah, that works. Some combination of being persuadable if they don't have to lift a finger

 

[bernie14]

In that case, there are very few moderates in the entire human species.

quite the opposite, which is why we have 8 hour work days, women voting, civil rights, etc....do you do realize that you are portraying yourself as unreasonable? Of course not, it's everyone else...

To me a moderate is someone who although they might have an opinion on a subject wouldn't see it as an issue they would fight for.
Take Women's Suffrage, I've seen it argued that the extremist Suffragettes were knocking on an open door, many moderates accepted the principle of women voting.
What I doubt is that given the diehard reactionary opposition to Women's Suffrage many moderates would've fought for it without the pressure from more radical elements.
I tend to think moderate reformism won't happen without extremist pressure.

Thank goodness for bell shaped curves and yes, so what, extremists tend to be louder

 

[AmazonQueen]

quite the opposite, which is why we have 8 hour work days, women voting, civil rights, etc....do you do realize that you are portraying yourself as unreasonable? Of course not, it's everyone else...



Thank goodness for bell shaped curves and yes, so what, extremists tend to be louder

So do you think we would have reached our present state without them?
I know you are a "reasonable" right-winger but do you really believe the rightwingers of ages past would have accepted what you now accept as reasonable without pressure?

 

[Arwon]

Here in some areas it's important for participating in your primaries for your party.

That means letting the state control and administer party candidate preselection processes, which is also very strange

 

[Arwon]

Also

 

[Ajidica]

Fence sitting
I was marching for gay rights way before many so called leftists were. You guys have no idea what you're talking about.
Moderates make up their own minds on how they come down on the issues and decide WHEN they do. I wasn't shamed into anything.

And your attempts to shame are just another form of bullying.

First off, I'll say I definitely came across as more aggressive than I intended. Mea culpa.

Secondly, I applaud you for marching for gay rights in the past. However, that was hardly a 'moderate' position until arguable the mid 2000s, insofar as 'moderate' is located somewhere between the Democrats and Republicans. That said, I will also note that I know very little about Chicago-specific politics and from the little I know gay rights sympathetic could very well have been part of a Rockefeller Republican GOP in the Chicago area.

Third, I have no idea where you are trying to go with the "moderates make up their own minds on how they come down on the issues". Are you implying that non-moderates are one step above hive-minds that just accept whatever decisions their respective intelligentsia decides for them? Plus, you haven't noted any policies that you or 'moderates' originated and believe in. You keep returning to the point that you look at things other people put forward and then "decide". To me, that seems quite an aberration from the long history of 'moderates' in the States, like the Rockefeller Republicans or John Anderson, who put forward their own coherent policy ideas and positions based on their own beliefs.

 

[Lexicus]

quite the opposite, which is why we have 8 hour work days, women voting, civil rights, etc....do you do realize that you are portraying yourself as unreasonable? Of course not, it's everyone else...

My condolences on your stroke, bad luck that it happened while you were typing this post.

 

[rah]

I guess I'm simply trying to say that moderates sometimes agree with the left on issues and sometimes agree with the right on issues. It doesn't mean we're always in the middle. Sometime we take a path down the middle but it depends on the issue. And yeah. sometimes I get the impression there there is some hive mentality where if you don't agree with every single issue from one side, you're the enemy. More so from the right but the left can be like that also. Every issues should be looked at separately and not through the partisan lens. But no matter how I try to define it, someone will think it means something else.