Dropped on YouTube Saturday afternoon



For several years I have been thinking that the Confederacy finally won by taking over the Republican Party.

From the comments I am not the only RIMO (Republican in Memory Only) who shares Ken Burns' observations.

This is the same Steve Schmidt from the Pedo, I mean, Lincoln Project?

It's really lazy at this point to say 'both sides are the same' when only one is in power launching wars, orchestrating race riots, enacting mass censorship, mutilating kids genitals, and locking up political opponents

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) August 26, 2023

BearHunter said:

---

This is the same Ken Burns from the Pedo, I mean, Lincoln Project?

---

Nope.

Both parties have changed and changed dramatically.

Kennedy's Dem party would pass for Republican today. Bill Clinton couldn't get elected today. It was only 14 years ago that Barack Obama was in favor of domestic partnerships but not gay marriage.

Reagan and Trump really couldn't be much different (frankly, a lot of MAGA domestic and foreign policy feels rather Democratish circa 1950's-1980s).

The one way both parties is the same is the both fundamentally care about one thing and one thing only above all else: gaining and retaining political power.

He edited to correct his mistake. His moniker sounds like a Troll, here to hunt Bears

I realize that the Lincoln Party are RIMOs as well
and that for TODAYS Republicans, Trump is the only past Republican President,
Kind of the point of the Lincoln Party

While the Trump party and friends included sex offenders like Trump, Epstein, Gaetz,
more worthy of the slur of "Pedo"

BearHunter said:

---

It's really lazy at this point to say 'both sides are the same' when only one is in power launching wars, orchestrating race riots, enacting mass censorship, mutilating kids genitals, and locking up political opponents

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) August 26, 2023

---

It's really lazy at this point to continue to make baseless accusations when none of the other baseless accusations ever get corroborated.

tequila4kapp said:

---

Both parties have changed and changed dramatically.

Kennedy's Dem party would pass for Republican today. Bill Clinton couldn't get elected today. It was only 14 years ago that Barack Obama was in favor of domestic partnerships but not gay marriage.

Reagan and Trump really couldn't be much different (frankly, a lot of MAGA domestic and foreign policy feels rather Democratish circa 1950's-1980s).

The one way both parties is the same is the both fundamentally care about one thing and one thing only above all else: gaining and retaining political power.

---

I'm not sure I agree with you line for line, but your last sentence is spot on. What we need right now is to unify around a platform independent of the two main parties. Right now pretty much anybody that runs as an independent has a decent chance if they play it right.

There are things that both sides can agree on as a platform:

• Money in politics = corruption in politics
• Better Jobs for Americans
• Lower taxes on the middle class
• Raise taxes on the super wealthy
• Law and order
• Fair and accountable elections
• Get rid of corruption and politics in the higher courts
• Protect the environment
• Develop energy locally
• human rights
• lower the military budget (stop paying for illegal wars and hold the pentagon accountable financially)
• Government stay out of our private lives
• Break ties with global elites so they can't control our economy, culture and politics
• Honor the constitution and Democracy
• Stop welfare for the wealthy and able
• Universal health care
• Minimum wage
• Protect social security
• Improve education
• improve mental health access
• Keep guns out of the hands of dangerous and/or mentally ill people
• Deal with poverty and homelessness
• Reduce the cost of housing and health care

These are the things that most Americans both conservative and Liberal believe in. Despite what the media reports, these things poll well continuously across a cross section of America.

I'm somewhat skeptical that most Conservatives support many items on your very good checklist.

bearister said:

---

I'm somewhat skeptical that most Conservatives support many items on your very good checklist.

---

Exactly. To give two examples, I have never heard a conservative advocate for the preservation of social security or the implementation of universal healthcare.

calpoly said:

---

bearister said:

---

I'm somewhat skeptical that most Conservatives support many items on your very good checklist.

---

Exactly. To give two examples, I have never heard a conservative advocate for the preservation of social security or the implementation of universal healthcare.

---

... and rarely, if ever, for increased investment in public education, which they refer to as "throwing money at the problem".

Agree with all posters here who have noted that there's tons of bs in both political parties. And it seems more true today than ever, though maybe it's always been like that.

Only one party blocks the creation of an ethical code of conduct for SCOTUS; only one party blocks reasonable gun control legislation; only one party supports tax cuts for the rich; only one party's leading presidential candidate has been charged with and actually committed multiple felonies , etc.,etc., etc.

This white male is serious. He makes it clear he hates brown skinned people & immigrants. Whoa, he’s talking genocide. Since whites hate Black ppl so much let’s negotiate a deal to separate. Pay us out reparations, we’ll take 5 southern states & leave us alone. Pay attention‼️ https://t.co/NqsXCyk4Nd

— CeeCee Freedmen (@Ceecee_Freedmen) August 27, 2023

tequila4kapp said:

---

Both parties have changed and changed dramatically.

Kennedy's Dem party would pass for Republican today. Bill Clinton couldn't get elected today. It was only 14 years ago that Barack Obama was in favor of domestic partnerships but not gay marriage.

Reagan and Trump really couldn't be much different (frankly, a lot of MAGA domestic and foreign policy feels rather Democratish circa 1950's-1980s).

The one way both parties is the same is the both fundamentally care about one thing and one thing only above all else: gaining and retaining political power.

---

Neither party has fundamentally changed in the last 50 years. Both remain neoliberal capitalist duopoly parties whose core principle is John Jay's maxim that those who own the country ought to govern it.

Both are dedicated to serving their stakeholders: corporations, individual capital holders and influential political operatives who affiliate with the party. Both support the existing class structure, its associated mode and distribution of production and hierarchical class relations. Both affirm the so-called "free market" wherein the best way to serve the general welfare is to enable the competition for individual aggrandizement that characterizes capitalism everywhere. Both hold democracy in contempt, home and abroad, and insist that any plan of political action that is not completely subordinated to existing power interests is childishly unpragmatic. Both support amoral foreign policy based on the "national interest" which they privately understand is identical to the interest of the American capital class and has nothing to do with democracy or human rights except in so far as these things can be used to serve the "national interest".

The US is and always has been a one-party state -- the business party -- and economic disagreement within the duopoly is tactical rather than philosophical. Differences in economic policy are attributable to the competition within the duopoly by the powerful stakeholders for the prime positions at the public trough or to differing opinions on how to most effectively serve their common class interests. Disagreements in "culture war" issues are intensely promoted exactly because they do not threaten the core interest of the duopoly.

Today's Democratic Party is the party of Clinton and Obama, the party of "third-way" pro-corporation, anti-labor politics and the only things that Bill Clinton would need to change in his public presentation to get elected today are things that are as far away as possible from the most important economic questions of society.

There is very little conservative about the modern Republican Party and I sadly agree with many (most?) of the criticisms of it expressed here. But in a two party system, it's the choice by default because the alternative is completely off the rails. It doesn't matter now because they will win regardless of popular sentiment for the same reason that Maduro always wins. Laugh/gloat now while you have the chance. On the bright side, thanks to Chavism, Venezuelans don't need Ozempic.

calpoly said:

---

bearister said:

---

I'm somewhat skeptical that most Conservatives support many items on your very good checklist.

---

Exactly. To give two examples, I have never heard a conservative advocate for the preservation of social security or the implementation of universal healthcare.

---

That's because the corporate media lies.
The polls show that these things are popular amongst a cross section of the voting public.
But, the media pretends that these are just Democratic or liberal values.
They're not.
In fact a good portion of progressive views are approved by most Americans, including Republicans.
They just don't usually admit it publicly.

A good example of this is when a good portion of Republicans were brainwashed into opposing Obamacare. But when faced with the prospect of losing the affordable care act, they spoke up. They didn't know that they are the same thing!!

Many Republicans and conservatives rely on social security and are devested by the high cost of health care. Old, poor and/or retired folks are not just liberals. There are plenty of these folks in red states. But they are usually duped into thinking that they are against it even though they are dependent on it.

What is funny is that, when they lose these things, they blame it on the Democrats and liberals. So it gets very confusing with all of the misinformation going on.

There are polls that cut through all this by asking respondents questions that are not politically loaded. When asked questions about social security and universal health care without political connotations, the popularity of these programs is undeniable.

The media doesn't want you to know that because they are against these programs. It is another example of why we need to move beyond party politics. The media owns party politics and benefits from driving a partisan wedge into the American electorate.

By keeping Americans distracted and divided, the globalists that own them can continue to weaken sovereign states and further increase their hedgemony over the world. It is these few oligarchic industrialists that are the cause of most of our political and economic problems. Yes, we have them to thank for so much of our products and quality of life, but we have become far more dependent and powerless than is necessary. Many things that can be produced and distributed locally are shipped globally.

Take California Almonds for example. Most of them are shipped to places like China because they get a higher price from the Chinese. It is actually much cheaper for Californians to buy Almonds because they are local. But, under the current global agenda, via trade and market agreements, we pay just as much for almonds as the Chinese. Smaller farms that want to sell at a lower price to Californians are driven out of the market by the shear market power of the larger firms. And this happens everywhere with everything, making our dependencies much greater than they need to be through monopolization.

BTW, I may be wrong about universal health care, but I know that the cost of prescription drugs is a real issue for all Americans and universal health care is one of the best ways to deal with it.

Point is that we aren't as different, separate or at odds with each other as it appears to be through the manipulation of our deceptive press. We can unify to solve problems and move into the future harmoniously. For some, joining the other side would be like embracing Furd. But our football fate is linked to Furd so we should work with them. It is the same in the world. Our fates are linked so lets negotiate our future together. It is a choice. And it is a choice we will all eventually be forced to take. The question is, how long will it take and how bad will we let it get before we finally realize this?

bearister said:

---

Only one party blocks the creation of an ethical code of conduct for SCOTUS; only one party blocks reasonable gun control legislation; only one party supports tax cuts for the rich; only one party's leading presidential candidate has been charged with and actually committed multiple felonies , etc.,etc., etc.

---

Good points all, reminding me of why I am registered with one of those parties, but not the other. Oh, can I add that only one of the two parties admits that climate change is real, is largely caused by humans and that we should take steps to mitigate it?

Still, tons of bs in both parties. A "No bs Party" might get a lot of support these days.

kal kommie said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Both parties have changed and changed dramatically.

Kennedy's Dem party would pass for Republican today. Bill Clinton couldn't get elected today. It was only 14 years ago that Barack Obama was in favor of domestic partnerships but not gay marriage.

Reagan and Trump really couldn't be much different (frankly, a lot of MAGA domestic and foreign policy feels rather Democratish circa 1950's-1980s).

The one way both parties is the same is the both fundamentally care about one thing and one thing only above all else: gaining and retaining political power.

---

Neither party has fundamentally changed in the last 50 years. Both remain neoliberal capitalist duopoly parties whose core principle is John Jay's maxim that those who own the country ought to govern it.

Both are dedicated to serving their stakeholders: corporations, individual capital holders and influential political operatives who affiliate with the party. Both support the existing class structure, its associated mode and distribution of production and hierarchical class relations. Both affirm the so-called "free market" wherein the best way to serve the general welfare is to enable the competition for individual aggrandizement that characterizes capitalism everywhere. Both hold democracy in contempt, home and abroad, and insist that any plan of political action that is not completely subordinated to existing power interests is childishly unpragmatic. Both support amoral foreign policy based on the "national interest" which they privately understand is identical to the interest of the American capital class and has nothing to do with democracy or human rights except in so far as these things can be used to serve the "national interest".

The US is and always has been a one-party state -- the business party -- and economic disagreement within the duopoly is tactical rather than philosophical. Differences in economic policy are attributable to the competition within the duopoly by the powerful stakeholders for the prime positions at the public trough or to differing opinions on how to most effectively serve their common class interests. Disagreements in "culture war" issues are intensely promoted exactly because they do not threaten the core interest of the duopoly.

Today's Democratic Party is the party of Clinton and Obama, the party of "third-way" pro-corporation, anti-labor politics and the only things that Bill Clinton would need to change in his public presentation to get elected today are things that are as far away as possible from the most important economic questions of society.

---

This is absolutely excellent. It's good cop/bad cop. The Democrats play good cop (pretending to be concerned about you) and the Republicans play bad cop (more ruthless and direct). This get the public focusing on the attitudes of the people in power rather than their actions. This is intentional and tactical. The derision and lack of respect for the intelligence of folks to see through all of that does not get across because usually people do allow themselves to get distracted by all of that. This is the true meaning of woke and it is why the term is attacked and marginalized. the power elite, the real ones, which is not the deep state as defined by the predominant rhetoric, really don't want people woke to the game that is being played on them.

In my fantasies, folks would study psychological warfare as a requirement at the HS and University level and come to really understand all the mind games that are being leveled against them.

One relatively recent mind game is to co-opt the talking points of the left and delegitimize them by using them in extreme ways that are not backed by facts. At which point, once the left attempts to use them in legitimate ways, they will be seen as crazy.

This is how "conspiracy theorist" is used. Nobody ever does any serious evaluation as to which cases may have actually involved a conspiracy. And nobody can possibly be skeptical of some conspiracies if they are for others.

Take the "stolen election" narrative. Well there is no evidence that the 2020 election was stolen. But there is plenty of evidence that the right has been preventing certain highly democratic leaning groups from voting. And in 2000, Bush stole the election via the supreme court, which had no grounds to stop the recount.

But now the left can't ever argue any of that again because they have been forced to argue that the elections are fare. The elections themselves are fare in the sense that the counting of votes, if allowed to happen, is done accurately. What is unfair is what happens before the voting happens to discourage certain folks from voting.

Anyway, this may be a bad example, and the point isn't whether or not elections are fare. The point is that the narrative is manipulated to make it harder for the left to legitimately own certain narratives. This is a type of psychological warfare and it can and will be used on you, regardless of political orientation. Get woke to it.

There is nothing more hilarious than liberal "expert" going into a liberal safe space and explaining why Republicans are really bad or a conservative "expert" going to a conservative safe space explaining why Dems are really bad. It is all just opinion couched as "fact" or "history". All in in an environment where there is 0% chance they'll be challenged or forced to answer tough questions. And in this case, there's a reason historians are really bad when it comes to discussing current events.

Sadly, there are rare people (and even fewer pundits) who genuinely attempt to explain and understand (with a certain level of empathy) what motivates people who think differently then them/their political opponents. Ken Burns is not one of those people.

And Steve Schmidt is one of the biggest grifters out there. The Lincoln Project has paid massive "consulting fees" to its founders. That Ken Burns - a supposed historian of repute - would even choose to go on that venue speaks volumes about his lack of judgement and impartiality. TDS at its worst.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/12/us/politics/lincoln-project-steve-schmidt-resigns.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/08/us/politics/lincoln-project-weaver.html

So, are we just going to pretend like Russia, Russia, Russia never happened (among other things!) and go back to debating about taxes, the budget, and healthcare? I would love to see this, unfortunately, the Democrats are trying to imprison the leading Republican candidate because they're evil left wing radicals.

sp4149 said:

---

For several years I have been thinking that the Confederacy finally won by taking over the Republican Party.

---

The Confederacy was established after Southern Democrats led the charge to secede from the Union after Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the United States. The Confederacy subsequently lost to the Americans in the American Civil War.

sp4149 said:

---

He edited to correct his mistake. His moniker sounds like a Troll, here to hunt Bears

I realize that the Lincoln Party are RIMOs as well
and that for TODAYS Republicans, Trump is the only past Republican President,
Kind of the point of the Lincoln Party

While the Trump party and friends included sex offenders like Trump, Epstein, Gaetz,
more worthy of the slur of "Pedo"

---

One of Lincoln Project's co-founder, John Weaver, was busted for grooming under-age boys. Twenty-one young men have accused Weaver of grooming them the youngest being 14-years-old at the time. Steve Schmidt pretended like he had no idea what was going on and eventually resigned from the Lincoln Project even though it became, according to the NYT, the most successful super-PAC in American history. Strange move for a never-Trumper.

heartofthebear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Both parties have changed and changed dramatically.

Kennedy's Dem party would pass for Republican today. Bill Clinton couldn't get elected today. It was only 14 years ago that Barack Obama was in favor of domestic partnerships but not gay marriage.

Reagan and Trump really couldn't be much different (frankly, a lot of MAGA domestic and foreign policy feels rather Democratish circa 1950's-1980s).

The one way both parties is the same is the both fundamentally care about one thing and one thing only above all else: gaining and retaining political power.

---

I'm not sure I agree with you line for line, but your last sentence is spot on. What we need right now is to unify around a platform independent of the two main parties. Right now pretty much anybody that runs as an independent has a decent chance if they play it right.

There are things that both sides can agree on as a platform:

• Money in politics = corruption in politics
• Better Jobs for Americans
• Lower taxes on the middle class
• Raise taxes on the super wealthy
• Law and order
• Fair and accountable elections
• Get rid of corruption and politics in the higher courts
• Protect the environment
• Develop energy locally
• human rights
• lower the military budget (stop paying for illegal wars and hold the pentagon accountable financially)
• Government stay out of our private lives
• Break ties with global elites so they can't control our economy, culture and politics
• Honor the constitution and Democracy
• Stop welfare for the wealthy and able
• Universal health care
• Minimum wage
• Protect social security
• Improve education
• improve mental health access
• Keep guns out of the hands of dangerous and/or mentally ill people
• Deal with poverty and homelessness
• Reduce the cost of housing and health care

These are the things that most Americans both conservative and Liberal believe in. Despite what the media reports, these things poll well continuously across a cross section of America.

---

That's a good list, I'd like to add the following (from Victor David Hanson)

• Not allowing biological men to compete in women's sports.
• Making it illegal to fire anyone for saying there are only two genders
• Preventing 2.3 million people illegally entering the country each year.
• Eliminating month-long elections and reducing the 70% mail in ballot number.
• Holding BLM and Antifa accountable for destroying neighborhoods, causing $2 billion in damage.
• Holding the FBI, DOJ, and the corporate media accountable for framing Donald Trump as a Russian agent to rig the 2016 election.
• Holding the CIA and the corporate media accountable for claiming that Hunter Biden's laptop was "Russian disinformation" to rig the 2020 election.
• Holding the FBI and DOJ accountable for hiding Hunter Biden's laptop, containing evidence of FARA violations, money laundering, and foreign bribes, to help Joe Biden become POTUS.
• Holding the DHS, CISA, and the White House accountable for working with Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube to censor American citizens.

That's not a unifying list

heartofthebear said:

---

That's not a unifying list

---

Neither of the two lists is unifying.

I can agree with many from each list and disagree with the rest.

Others will disagree with my list.

All we can do is hold a debate on why I choose certain items on each list and then we each go to vote.

Unless its an election of Trump vs. Biden.


Areas of disagreement for me:

Raise taxes on the super wealthy
- the problem with statement like this is that "super wealthy" is always those above their own tax bracket. Justify to me why your taxes should not go up exponentially. On a global perspective, are you really just getting by?

lower the military budget (stop paying for illegal wars and hold the pentagon accountable financially)
- the problem with this is that we want to protect our world order where Putins of the world cannot just bully weaker countries but do so without the necessary military. If the standard for cutting budget is due to inefficiency, then everything should be cut and you have become a Republican.

Break ties with global elites so they can't control our economy, culture and politics
- the problem is like taxes. who are the global elite? this type of class war is the heart of what got Trump elected. Why does it have to be a class war or education war instead of argument about policy? Much easier to hate a group than to debate policy

Stop welfare for the wealthy and able
- who is wealthy? Assume this is meant to address tax breaks for corporation. the tax breaks are intended not as a hand out but a means of control in areas that they otherwise under the constitution (other than through negative commerce clause) legislate. For example, tax breaks under CHIPS to incentivize investment in US semi-conductor manufacturing. Seems like welfare but good for the country and national security. Etc. We can also argue about who is able. The right argues that there is too much welfare for those who are able to work but choose not to.

Deal with poverty and homelessness
- no one wants more poverty or homelessness. but it is a question of how we go about it and to what extent. and I think the liberal way of just allowing long-term homeless to stay homeless without some forced change is counterproductive and creates more homeless. as long as we have a merit-based economy, there will always be poverty. we can have poverty for all like Cuba or have a merit-based economy (we can then argue whether risk taking is merit but nothing is stopping you from taking the same risks).

Eliminating month-long elections and reducing the 70% mail in ballot number
- Republicans used to be more in favor of mail in ballots and long election to assist the military and older voters. Trump decided to build in an excuse and convinced his base not to vote by mail when it seemed like states that always had mail in votes (e.g. California even when it was purple) was somehow fraudulent for doing the same - why is anyone surprised that mail-in votes tilted toward Biden?

Holding the FBI, DOJ, and the corporate media accountable for framing Donald Trump as a Russian agent to rig the 2016 election.
- sounds like a liberal, criminal loving argument. I want our justice system to investigate when there is even slight probable cause. there was evidence. they needed to investigate to assess the worthiness of the evidence. they chose not to indict Trump on collusion with the Russians. it worked. no one is exempt from investigation, as clearly demonstrated by the Jordan committee.

Holding the corporate media accountable for claiming that Hunter Biden's laptop was "Russian disinformation" to rig the 2020 election.
-what would you like our DOJ to do about lying media like Foxnews and even their further right-right, further lying media? Or is it just media that does not report what the far right wants to hear?

Holding the FBI and DOJ accountable for hiding Hunter Biden's laptop, containing evidence of FARA violations, money laundering, and foreign bribes, to help Joe Biden become POTUS.
- if they were hiding the laptop, how do you know about its existence or content? Or do you think that they should release all evidence and all facts during a pending investigation? WOuld you have been happy if the FBI did that with the Trumps prior to indictment or conclusion of the investigation?

Holding the DHS, CISA, and the White House accountable for working with Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube to censor American citizens.
- apparently agency cannot investigate corporations for ensuring compliance with applicable law? DOJ, SEC, FTC, etc. are always trying to influence behavior. All those compliance programs are mainly based on not just national securities exchange listing standards but also sentencing guidelines and guidance on when and how these agencies will investigate and enforce. if they viewed those platforms as spreading destructive messages (1st amendment does not allow you to scream fire in a crowded theater) or propaganda from Russia/China, they can investigate. Kind of like how the Jordan committee wants to investigate everything.

BearGoggles said:

---

There is nothing more hilarious than liberal "expert" going into a liberal safe space and explaining why Republicans are really bad or a conservative "expert" going to a conservative safe space explaining why Dems are really bad. It is all just opinion couched as "fact" or "history". All in in an environment where there is 0% chance they'll be challenged or forced to answer tough questions. And in this case, there's a reason historians are really bad when it comes to discussing current events.

Sadly, there are rare people (and even fewer pundits) who genuinely attempt to explain and understand (with a certain level of empathy) what motivates people who think differently then them/their political opponents. Ken Burns is not one of those people.

And Steve Schmidt is one of the biggest grifters out there. The Lincoln Project has paid massive "consulting fees" to its founders. That Ken Burns - a supposed historian of repute - would even choose to go on that venue speaks volumes about his lack of judgement and impartiality. TDS at its worst.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/12/us/politics/lincoln-project-steve-schmidt-resigns.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/08/us/politics/lincoln-project-weaver.html

---

Ken Burns has been publicly anti-Trump for years.

heartofthebear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Both parties have changed and changed dramatically.

Kennedy's Dem party would pass for Republican today. Bill Clinton couldn't get elected today. It was only 14 years ago that Barack Obama was in favor of domestic partnerships but not gay marriage.

Reagan and Trump really couldn't be much different (frankly, a lot of MAGA domestic and foreign policy feels rather Democratish circa 1950's-1980s).

The one way both parties is the same is the both fundamentally care about one thing and one thing only above all else: gaining and retaining political power.

---

I'm not sure I agree with you line for line, but your last sentence is spot on. What we need right now is to unify around a platform independent of the two main parties. Right now pretty much anybody that runs as an independent has a decent chance if they play it right.

There are things that both sides can agree on as a platform:

• Money in politics = corruption in politics
• Better Jobs for Americans
• Lower taxes on the middle class
• Raise taxes on the super wealthy
• Law and order
• Fair and accountable elections
• Get rid of corruption and politics in the higher courts
• Protect the environment
• Develop energy locally
• human rights
• lower the military budget (stop paying for illegal wars and hold the pentagon accountable financially)
• Government stay out of our private lives
• Break ties with global elites so they can't control our economy, culture and politics
• Honor the constitution and Democracy
• Stop welfare for the wealthy and able
• Universal health care
• Minimum wage
• Protect social security
• Improve education
• improve mental health access
• Keep guns out of the hands of dangerous and/or mentally ill people
• Deal with poverty and homelessness
• Reduce the cost of housing and health care

These are the things that most Americans both conservative and Liberal believe in. Despite what the media reports, these things poll well continuously across a cross section of America.

---

All of these points sound like the Democrat platform and the GOP opposes many of them.

Zippergate said:

---

There is very little conservative about the modern Republican Party and I sadly agree with many (most?) of the criticisms of it expressed here. But in a two party system, it's the choice by default because the alternative is completely off the rails. It doesn't matter now because they will win regardless of popular sentiment for the same reason that Maduro always wins. Laugh/gloat now while you have the chance. On the bright side, thanks to Chavism, Venezuelans don't need Ozempic.

---

I was going to Star your post because of the opening, but then, are you saying that the Democrats are off the rails?

Please, tell me how.
I hope to read intelligent and thoughtful things - factual - not an emotional regurgitation of FoxNews blather.

Zippergate said:

---

There is very little conservative about the modern Republican Party and I sadly agree with many (most?) of the criticisms of it expressed here. But in a two party system, it's the choice by default because the alternative is completely off the rails. It doesn't matter now because they will win regardless of popular sentiment for the same reason that Maduro always wins. Laugh/gloat now while you have the chance. On the bright side, thanks to Chavism, Venezuelans don't need Ozempic.

---

But there is something we can do. Remember, both parties fundamentally care about obtaining and retaining power. That is their Achilles heel. As long as people continue to accept that our only choices are the lesser of two evils, nothing changes. We can refuse to vote or we can start voting in different ways. It is just a numbers game...enough of us need to do something different and the two parties will change. IMO Republicans are more likely to change first, mostly because (IMO) they are a rudderless group that mostly doesn't even pretend to have core values any longer.

tequila4kapp said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

There is very little conservative about the modern Republican Party and I sadly agree with many (most?) of the criticisms of it expressed here. But in a two party system, it's the choice by default because the alternative is completely off the rails. It doesn't matter now because they will win regardless of popular sentiment for the same reason that Maduro always wins. Laugh/gloat now while you have the chance. On the bright side, thanks to Chavism, Venezuelans don't need Ozempic.

---

But there is something we can do. Remember, both parties fundamentally care about obtaining and retaining power. That is their Achilles heel. As long as people continue to accept that our only choices are the lesser of two evils, nothing changes. We can refuse to vote or we can start voting in different ways. It is just a numbers game...enough of us need to do something different and the two parties will change. IMO Republicans are more likely to change first, mostly because (IMO) they are a rudderless group that mostly doesn't even pretend to have core values any longer.

---

Refusing to vote wouldn't be a great way to effect change unless it came with armed revolution.

dimitrig said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Both parties have changed and changed dramatically.

Kennedy's Dem party would pass for Republican today. Bill Clinton couldn't get elected today. It was only 14 years ago that Barack Obama was in favor of domestic partnerships but not gay marriage.

Reagan and Trump really couldn't be much different (frankly, a lot of MAGA domestic and foreign policy feels rather Democratish circa 1950's-1980s).

The one way both parties is the same is the both fundamentally care about one thing and one thing only above all else: gaining and retaining political power.

---

I'm not sure I agree with you line for line, but your last sentence is spot on. What we need right now is to unify around a platform independent of the two main parties. Right now pretty much anybody that runs as an independent has a decent chance if they play it right.

There are things that both sides can agree on as a platform:

• Money in politics = corruption in politics
• Better Jobs for Americans
• Lower taxes on the middle class
• Raise taxes on the super wealthy
• Law and order
• Fair and accountable elections
• Get rid of corruption and politics in the higher courts
• Protect the environment
• Develop energy locally
• human rights
• lower the military budget (stop paying for illegal wars and hold the pentagon accountable financially)
• Government stay out of our private lives
• Break ties with global elites so they can't control our economy, culture and politics
• Honor the constitution and Democracy
• Stop welfare for the wealthy and able
• Universal health care
• Minimum wage
• Protect social security
• Improve education
• improve mental health access
• Keep guns out of the hands of dangerous and/or mentally ill people
• Deal with poverty and homelessness
• Reduce the cost of housing and health care

These are the things that most Americans both conservative and Liberal believe in. Despite what the media reports, these things poll well continuously across a cross section of America.

---

All of these points sound like the Democrat platform and the GOP opposes many of them.

---

you missed my point. Yes, the party does and that's the problem with party politics. The large majority of actual voters do not oppose these things. Trust polls over parties.

BearHunter said:

---

sp4149 said:

---

For several years I have been thinking that the Confederacy finally won by taking over the Republican Party.

---

The Confederacy was established after Southern Democrats led the charge to secede from the Union after Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the United States. The Confederacy subsequently lost to the Americans in the American Civil War.

---

But the Confederacy did not die.

Churchill reportedly said that "Victors write history.

But the history of the "War Between the States" was written by the Southern States (aka Confederacy)

Some Southern States did not recognize the surrender of Lee to Grant as the end of the war, but instead April 26th which became Confederate Memorial Day' eventually evolving into Memorial Day of today. Last year Louisiana voted to stop celebrating Confederate Memorial Day as a state holiday.

After WWII the Confederate battle flag was incorporated into the several Southern State Flags. The Confederacy had re-emerged from the weeds. Dis-satisfied with a minority role in the Democrat party (ending with LBJ) the Dixiecrats jumped at the opportunity to play a major role in Republican politics, soon capturing control which they still exert.

"lost to the Americans?" So it was war with Foreign terrorists? admittedly the Union had a large number of foreign mercenaries ( but the Southern states had a smaller number); so the Union Army was perhaps less-AMERICAN than the Confederacy, not more. Ah, those new MAGA history books...

tequila4kapp said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

There is very little conservative about the modern Republican Party and I sadly agree with many (most?) of the criticisms of it expressed here. But in a two party system, it's the choice by default because the alternative is completely off the rails. It doesn't matter now because they will win regardless of popular sentiment for the same reason that Maduro always wins. Laugh/gloat now while you have the chance. On the bright side, thanks to Chavism, Venezuelans don't need Ozempic.

---

But there is something we can do. Remember, both parties fundamentally care about obtaining and retaining power. That is their Achilles heel. As long as people continue to accept that our only choices are the lesser of two evils, nothing changes. We can refuse to vote or we can start voting in different ways. It is just a numbers game...enough of us need to do something different and the two parties will change. IMO Republicans are more likely to change first, mostly because (IMO) they are a rudderless group that mostly doesn't even pretend to have core values any longer.

---

Elimination of primaries would be a great way to rid ourselves of dregs like Trump and Biden as our only choices.

heartofthebear said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Both parties have changed and changed dramatically.

Kennedy's Dem party would pass for Republican today. Bill Clinton couldn't get elected today. It was only 14 years ago that Barack Obama was in favor of domestic partnerships but not gay marriage.

Reagan and Trump really couldn't be much different (frankly, a lot of MAGA domestic and foreign policy feels rather Democratish circa 1950's-1980s).

The one way both parties is the same is the both fundamentally care about one thing and one thing only above all else: gaining and retaining political power.

---

I'm not sure I agree with you line for line, but your last sentence is spot on. What we need right now is to unify around a platform independent of the two main parties. Right now pretty much anybody that runs as an independent has a decent chance if they play it right.

There are things that both sides can agree on as a platform:

• Money in politics = corruption in politics
• Better Jobs for Americans
• Lower taxes on the middle class
• Raise taxes on the super wealthy
• Law and order
• Fair and accountable elections
• Get rid of corruption and politics in the higher courts
• Protect the environment
• Develop energy locally
• human rights
• lower the military budget (stop paying for illegal wars and hold the pentagon accountable financially)
• Government stay out of our private lives
• Break ties with global elites so they can't control our economy, culture and politics
• Honor the constitution and Democracy
• Stop welfare for the wealthy and able
• Universal health care
• Minimum wage
• Protect social security
• Improve education
• improve mental health access
• Keep guns out of the hands of dangerous and/or mentally ill people
• Deal with poverty and homelessness
• Reduce the cost of housing and health care

These are the things that most Americans both conservative and Liberal believe in. Despite what the media reports, these things poll well continuously across a cross section of America.

---

All of these points sound like the Democrat platform and the GOP opposes many of them.

---

you missed my point. Yes, the party does and that's the problem with party politics. The large majority of actual voters do not oppose these things. Trust polls over parties.

---

You missed my point which is that the Democratic Party stands for almost all of these so those RINOs just need to recognize that. We don't need a 3rd party, we just need people to vote for the party that actually represents their interests.

sp4149 said:

---

After WWII the Confederate battle flag was incorporated into the several Southern State Flags. The Confederacy had re-emerged from the weeds. Dis-satisfied with a minority role in the Democrat party (ending with LBJ) the Dixiecrats jumped at the opportunity to play a major role in Republican politics, soon capturing control which they still exert.

---

Churchill reportedly said that "Victors write history" but teacher unions and American universities are dominated by left wingers and are heavily aligned with the Democratic Party.

Republicans actually became competitive in the South as early as 1928, when Republican Herbert Hoover won over 47 percent of the South's popular vote against Democrat Al Smith. In 1952, Republican President Dwight Eisenhower won the southern states of Tennessee, Florida and Virginia. And in 1956, he picked up Louisiana, Kentucky and West Virginia, too. And that was after he supported the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education that desegregated public schools;.

Of the 21 southern Democratic senators who opposed the Civil Rights Act, just one became a Republican. The other 20 continued to be elected as Democrats, or were replaced by other Democrats. On average, those 20 seats didn't go Republican for another two-and-a-half decades.

Republican Richard Nixon lost the Deep South in 1968. In contrast, Democrat Jimmy Carter nearly swept the region in 1976 - 12 years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And in 1992, over 28 years later, Democrat Bill Clinton won Georgia, Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky and West Virginia. Republicans didn't hold a majority of southern congressional seats until 1994, 30 years after the Civil Rights Act.