geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Actually, the problem is the tent is too big. Democrats pretty much march in lock-step. Republicans go from moderate to libertarian. Democrats go from Socialist Democrat to . . . extremely progressive.

I disagree. We've all heard RINO, but I remind you there is no DINO. No one uses the expression or the concept, because it doesn't exist. I think the Dems are far more welcoming of diverse opinions, and no one is ostracized, or shunned because their views are different from the democratic orthodoxy.

Nonsense. Who is pro-life and prominent in the Democratic Party? Pro-traditional marriage?

The Democratic party is an exercise in group-think and political correctness.

I can't think of too many examples from world history where shrinking the tent has been either electorally or politically successful. The two most transformative conservative leaders were Reagan and Thatcher, who both successfully appealed to a lot of voters outside of their traditional base, won lots of elections as a result and therefore spent long enough in government to enact radical changes. DF seems to think that the purpose of politics is to oppose, but in actual fact the purpose is to govern.

Doctor Fate wrote:Nonsense. Who is pro-life and prominent in the Democratic Party? Pro-traditional marriage?

The Democratic party is an exercise in group-think and political correctness.

That's just not true. Lots of the christian black community are very much anti-gay and think that gay marriage is an abomination, but they don't feel comfortable in the republican party [shocker]. Lots of white working-class Catholics are pro-life, but also pro-union, and they have to choose. Many choose their livelihood. Tough choice for them, I'm sure, but it's clear that divergent views are tolerated with Democrats. Just go back and read your own posts on Republicans, Fate. The contempt you use to describe many of them is palpable; there are many who are clearly not "Republican" enough for you. Again, that's fine for your faith, but it's not fine for building a broad based political movement. Politicians have to find common ground, build coalitions of people with common interests, compromise to keep everyone at least a little bit satisfied.

So how about this news about Paul Ryan? Looks like he'll take the speakership if he wants it. What do you think of him Fate? Is he Republican enough for you?

fate

Nonsense. Who is pro-life and prominent in the Democratic Party? Pro-traditional marriage?

The existence of litmus tests on certain positions that disqualify a person from membership in a Party limits the ability of a Party to evolve and change. And that has to limit the electability of a party over time as society changes. And if the litmus test isn't applied to membership or support, it is certainly applied to candidates for elected office. Especially Presidency.
The majority of Americans now support Gay Marriage. The majority of Americans support women's right to choose.
And support for both positions has been growing. Moreover the alternatives on offer are not supported.
Trump has been good for one thing, he attacks Republican orthodoxies. Among which are some that are contradictory and illogical. (Bush kept us safe. Money in politics is benign. etc) This seems to be knocking over one or two of the "litmus test" requirements. But not all of them.

Ricky:

Money in politics is benign

I've not heard that as a Republican orthodoxy.

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Nonsense. Who is pro-life and prominent in the Democratic Party? Pro-traditional marriage?

The Democratic party is an exercise in group-think and political correctness.

That's just not true. Lots of the christian black community are very much anti-gay and think that gay marriage is an abomination . . .

Non-responsive. Again, the question: "Who is pro-life and prominent in the Democratic Party?"

, but they don't feel comfortable in the republican party [shocker].

Yes, not too shocking given the partisan media that likes to give Democrats credit when all they've done is pay their most reliable voters to remain poor and in public housing.

Lots of white working-class Catholics are pro-life, but also pro-union, and they have to choose. Many choose their livelihood. Tough choice for them, I'm sure, but it's clear that divergent views are tolerated with Democrats.

Wrong on two levels. Our state is filled with said Catholics, but they don't give a fig about being Catholic except when babies are baptized, funerals are held, or Notre Dame is on TV.

Just go back and read your own posts on Republicans, Fate. The contempt you use to describe many of them is palpable; there are many who are clearly not "Republican" enough for you.

Um, you're actually proving how big the tent is.

So how about this news about Paul Ryan? Looks like he'll take the speakership if he wants it. What do you think of him Fate? Is he Republican enough for you?

I agree with some pundits: he doesn't want it. His demands are poison pills. I'd say it's less than 50/50. However, he's GOP enough for me.

rickyp wrote:fate

Nonsense. Who is pro-life and prominent in the Democratic Party? Pro-traditional marriage?

The existence of litmus tests on certain positions that disqualify a person from membership in a Party limits the ability of a Party to evolve and change.

You're right. Since the Democrats have so many litmus tests, they won't evolve or change.

The majority of Americans now support Gay Marriage. The majority of Americans support women's right to choose.

Maybe. It depends on how the questions are framed. And, homosexual marriage is relatively new: opinions may change. As for abortion, the trend is against it, not for it.

And support for both positions has been growing.

Prove it with respect to abortion--and please explain why the trend has been against late term abortions.

To be a Democrat and run for President, one must be:

1. Pro-abortion, with virtually no limitations.
2. Pro-homosexual marriage.
3. Pro-more free stuff, without any notion of how to actually pay for any of it.
4. Relentlessly pro-union even when it makes no sense (see the problems with the VA)
5. Against the military while professing to be for the men and women who serve.

There are more, but it's enough.

rayjay

I've not heard that as a Republican orthodoxy

Support for Citizens United ruling of SCOTUS was almost exclusively Republican. Until Trump came along, it was accepted orthodoxy. If I'm wrong you should be able to find a comment from some leading Republican before 2015 that decries the decision and calls for the end to Super Pacs etc.
I doubt you could.
Now. Not so much maybe? Because the Donald has finally pointed out that what money in politics is ...

Fate

And, homosexual marriage is relatively new: opinions may change

.
well, we know for sure yours won't.

Why would opinions change against gay marriage Fate? What could possibly discomfit the populace so much that a majority would turn against the Constitutional freedom to marry the partner of choice?

rickyp wrote:Fate

And, homosexual marriage is relatively new: opinions may change

.
well, we know for sure yours won't.

Why would opinions change against gay marriage Fate? What could possibly discomfit the populace so much that a majority would turn against the Constitutional freedom to marry the partner of choice?

Why have opinions changed on abortion?

Why did opinions change on Prohibition?

Why do opinions ever change?

rickyp wrote:rayjay

I've not heard that as a Republican orthodoxy

Support for Citizens United ruling of SCOTUS was almost exclusively Republican. Until Trump came along, it was accepted orthodoxy. If I'm wrong you should be able to find a comment from some leading Republican before 2015 that decries the decision and calls for the end to Super Pacs etc.
I doubt you could.
Now. Not so much maybe? Because the Donald has finally pointed out that what money in politics is ...

Ricky, once again you are having a hard time with the English language. Believing that money in politics is benign is different than believing that Citizens United is unconstitutional, or that monetary contributions should not be restricted because it represents government interference with political expression. Some Republicans and others see it as a necessary evil. To them, it's not benign, but restricting it unconstitutionally limits free speech. I hope we don't have to get into an argument on this. I'm not arguing about the wisdom of Citizen's United. I'm just saying that you are unfairly categorizing the statement "money in politics is benign".as a Republican orthodoxy. Have many Republicans said that? Will we now have to have an argument because you are unable or refuse to understand the nuance of what I just said?

P.S. John McCain who is a Republican has heavily criticized the decision. https://www.opposingviews.com/i/politic ... t-decision

McCain has made it clear in the past that he has never supported the Court’s ruling on the matter. Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press” in June 2012, McCain called the decision “arrogant, uninformed, naïve,” according to the New York Times.

Let's not forget who broke the public financing system: Obama, who, if memory serves, is a Democrat.

Doctor Fate wrote:Nonsense. Who is pro-life and prominent in the Democratic Party?

Senator Bob Casey Jr (like his father, Gov Bob Casey Sr)? He opposes abortion. He was prominent enough to beat Rick Santorum

Pro-traditional marriage?

You mean, "anti-gay-marriage", surely? Anyway, Senator Joe Manchin. He's also in the NRA.

The Democratic party is an exercise in group-think and political correctness.

Based on two issues alone? And not even the most important issues in America really (surely deficits, wars, healthcare, crime, guns, immigration etc are all much more important to the nation as a whole?)

The Democrats have always had a conservative wing, mainly from the South. But of course that has been largely turned over in recent decades as the South has moved toward the Republicans. Southern Democrats still tend to be more conservative, but there are fewer of them - not because the Democrats ejected them, but because the Republicans beat them in elections.

All political parties have to have some kind of common platform, or what is the point, surely?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Nonsense. Who is pro-life and prominent in the Democratic Party?

Senator Bob Casey Jr (like his father, Gov Bob Casey Sr)? He opposes abortion. He was prominent enough to beat Rick Santorum

Hmm, yeah, sure. So, he's pro-life?

Smith will challenge Senator Casey (D) who has a mixed voting record (44%), according to National Right to Life.

In the Democratic Party, 44% is probably pretty good, but I wouldn't rate him "pro-life." And, he doesn't really boast about his status:

While Casey’s website does not even mention pro-life issues, Smith’s website features this statement: “Tom Smith is pro-life, period. He will work in the United States Senate to protect our most vulnerable citizens. He will not be afraid to hold officials in the Executive Branch and prospective judges accountable for their views and actions.” Smith has also publicly committed to repealing the pro-abortion Obama healthcare law. (Casey voted for the law.)

Pro-traditional marriage?

You mean, "anti-gay-marriage", surely? Anyway, Senator Joe Manchin. He's also in the NRA.

I don't consider him anti-homosexual marriage:

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) today released the following statement on the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the Obergefell v. Hodges case.

“America is a nation of laws, and we must respect and abide by the Supreme Court’s decision.”

That's about as vanilla as it gets and certainly not "anti" anything.

The Democratic party is an exercise in group-think and political correctness.

Based on two issues alone? And not even the most important issues in America really (surely deficits, wars, healthcare, crime, guns, immigration etc are all much more important to the nation as a whole?)

Nope, pretty much down the line.

The Democrats have always had a conservative wing, mainly from the South. But of course that has been largely turned over in recent decades as the South has moved toward the Republicans. Southern Democrats still tend to be more conservative, but there are fewer of them - not because the Democrats ejected them, but because the Republicans beat them in elections.

If there was a moderate wing of the Democratic party, a liberal wingnut like Pelosi could not have run her caucus so tightly.

All political parties have to have some kind of common platform, or what is the point, surely?

Trump is a pretty heavy bit of evidence that the GOP has more diverse thinking than the DNC. They don't even have two "real" candidates. If Bernie doesn't win both Iowa and NH, he'll be out. Even if he does, he can't hope to be competitive for long.

rayjay

Believing that money in politics is benign is different than believing that Citizens United is unconstitutional, or that monetary contributions should not be restricted because it represents government interference with political expression

Well, I suppose you can twist into a pretzel .
Your saying, if I'm not misinterpreting that is possible for some to believe that unlimited political contributions creates a poisonous undemocratic, environment that leads to corruption ... but to also believe that this is constitutionally protected ...and therefore must be tolerated ...
Its an interesting way of interpreting the constitution.
Bizarre really.