.............what's better?..........

going into 2023 being a republican or democrat? 

right answers only 

@pipedoctor

 I'd never vote a Democrat and Republicans are wussies.....I'm independent and 100% don't trust media or our government...We're as corrupt as the next and you better learn to take care of your family...At least here they don't censor yet and believes in speech...Media and government is kind of like sportsbetting but most still don't understand because this country is brainwashed now...When media and government team up and push the same agenda, you better do the opposite or run the other way...When the sports world is on the same game, go the opposite or run the other way.....Which is better??  Indedamnpendent, where you think for yourself right or wrong!!! Merry Christmas Everyone, Knock!

Democrat.

Better chance to nail AOC 

She's not messing with a republican

@Danny9999

she's has too much teeth and aggressive, that could wreck a man 

Damn good answer. 

Since US is too polarized, voters should vote in more moderate candidates willing to compromise to find solutions to problems.  Today, democrats are center right on political spectrum while republicans are far right extremists.

Nothing at all is correct here. Wow.  

Too polarized, according to what or who?  Always has been and will always be a lot of polarization due to different political beliefs on what is best for the country.  Study the history -- the country has been more and less polarized at times.  Just because there are folks that disagree with the Left, it is assumed the Right has gone more to the Right -- they have not.  By and large they are way less to the Right than they used to be.

Automatically assuming the compromising will work on every, or even most, issues is wrong.  Most people on either side do not want to compromise their principles just to satisfy the other side.  It is always ssumed the Right is the side that should compromise.  The Left rarely will compromise.  That is why the country has moved so far Left.  

Therefore, by definition, the Democrats are not center right at all.  They are still Left of center and some are far left of center.  

It is just that the political spectrum itself has been moved.  So, nowadays, what used to be center has been adjusted to the Left.

@Raiders22

I’m not happy or supportive of the far left bet I find the Democrats to the all Americans mind there agenda’s. I don’t agree on a  lot of the MAGA agenda because it didn’t make America great and it’s mostly smoke and mirrors and no substance like there replacement of ACA they had no replacement! I think misinformation and distortion is the root of the problem for most of the Republican voters. I think decades of distortion starting with Rush Limbaugh and Fox News have created a bubble of alternate reality for many conservatives. How do we undo that? How do we fight the modern social media bubbles formed by limiting information to what you like? (I’m guilty, too.) As Democrats had to sit and watch Trump’s efforts to reverse or overthrow every accomplishment of Obama.Or how about the double talk of not nominating someone for the Supreme Court with Republicans on their opposition to Obama nominating a replacement during his last term.   to have there words come back and bite then in the ass like that….Nope Because people without integrity (Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham) have no shame in directly contradicting their previous claims and promises and pushing Barrett in with 8 days before the election The party of “ No “ needs to make some adjustments before they get a vote from me

.....public service questioneer 

is decantis as dangerous and obnoxious as lumpy trumpy?

@joe pockets

 I’m not happy or supportive of the far left                  ?bet I find the Democrats to the all Americans mind there agenda’s.?

Good to know you are not happy with far left, blindly.  Could not decipher the last part of the sentence.

I don’t agree on a  lot of the MAGA agenda because

Here I would like more clarification on what the 'MAGA agenda' is, or what you perceive it to be.

it didn’t make America great

What exactly did not?  And did it not because you do not agree with it?  What did you gauge success by?

and it’s mostly smoke and mirrors and no substance like there replacement of ACA they had no replacement!

Was ACA replaced?  Does it need to be replaced?  If you see/feel/know something is inherently bad -- does it follow that you need a solution?  Maybe nothing is better than what you currently have.

I think misinformation and distortion is the root of the problem for most of the Republican voters.

Would you also consider misinformation and distortion to be a big issue for the Left?  Why is it always assumed the Right is biased or distorts for their agenda?  You do not think the Left does this?

I think decades of distortion starting with Rush Limbaugh and Fox News have created a bubble of alternate reality for many conservatives.

The rest of media (CNN, MSNBC, etc.) and social media has not done this to the Left?  

How do we undo that?

Is it needed?  That assumes, correctly, it is distorted.  To prove this you would need empirical evidence presented -- not just perception and loud talk from the Left.

How do we fight the modern social media bubbles formed by limiting information to what you like? (I’m guilty, too.)

I have to question any agenda that wants to limit information at all.  More transparency is better to me.

As Democrats had to sit and watch Trump’s efforts to reverse or overthrow every accomplishment of Obama.

Isn't this exactly what Biden did?  Isn't this what is expected when the opposite party goes into office if you feel it is incorrect policy?  It is also a portion of the checks-and-balances to a degree.

Or how about the double talk of not nominating someone for the Supreme Court with Republicans on their opposition to Obama nominating a replacement during his last term.  

This is fair -- if I understand what you are saying.  I also think both parties will do this when it is in their best interest.  Especially, when it will have longterm effects like a Supreme Court appointee.

to have there words come back and bite then in the ass like that….Nope Because people without integrity (Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham)

Is this fair?  Because you do not agree with them they have no integrity?  Is the converse true as well?  How does that help at all?  To simply denounce someone by saying they have no integrity is lazy critical thinking to me.

have no shame in directly contradicting their previous claims and promises and pushing Barrett in with 8 days before the election The party of “ No “ needs to make some adjustments before they get a vote from me

The party of 'NO' to what all?  Is it correct to just assume a party for 'YES' would always be right?

Lastly, what exactly would be 'adjustments' that you would like to see.  Not in general but more specific?

Good well-thought out words and I look forward to seeing you expound on your thoughts more.  More discussion on here is good. 

@pipedoctor

 He’s more of the same ! Nope 

@Raiders22

 In nut shell, If the Republicans don’t come back to the table and and dump there umbrella leadership for the rich only they wii continue to lose elections MAGA,TEA PARTY are the same and unelectable to more than 52 % of the country plain and simple.

What table?  Is there really an equal table for them?

What exactly are you referring to as 'umbrella leadership'?  As opposed to what type of leadership?  So, the Republicans have factions?  You do not think the Democrats do?  But they are electable to 52% or more.  The question should be--why is that?

Here are some of the things I support.Now tell me what I am. Anyone?

Continue and further perfect its programs of assistance to the millions of workers with special employment problems, such as older workers, handicapped workers, members of minority groups, and migratory workers;

Protect by law, the assets of employee welfare and benefit plans so that workers who are the beneficiaries can be assured of their rightful benefits;

Strengthen and improve the Federal-State Employment Service and improve the effectiveness of the unemployment insurance system;

Assure equal pay for equal work regardless of Sex;

Extend the protection of the Federal minimum wage laws to as many more workers as is possible and practicable;

Provide assistance to improve the economic conditions of areas faced with persistent and substantial unemployment.
 Continue  far-reaching and sound advances in matters of basic human needs — expansion of social security — broadened coverage in unemployment insurance — improved housing — and better health protection for all our people. Continue to seek extension and perfection of a sound social security system.

The protection of the right of workers to organize into unions and to bargain collectively.

supports an immigration policy which is in keeping with the traditions of America in providing a haven for oppressed peoples, and which is based on equality of treatment, freedom from implications of discrimination between racial, nationality and religious groups, and flexible enough to conform to changing needs and conditions.

Would like to especially hear what raiders thinks.

“Continue and further perfect its programs of assistance to the millions of workers with special employment problems, such as older workers, handicapped workers, members of minority groups, and migratory workers;

Protect by law, the assets of employee welfare and benefit plans so that workers who are the beneficiaries can be assured of their rightful benefits;

Strengthen and improve the Federal-State Employment Service and improve the effectiveness of the unemployment insurance system;

Extend the protection of the Federal minimum wage laws to as many more workers as is possible and practicable;

Provide assistance to improve the economic conditions of areas faced with persistent and substantial unemployment.”

I assume since all of these are separated by semi-colons they are more or less related.

But it is broadly vague.  I would need exact details of what specifically you think is needed or not being adhered to.

For example, who is not protected under the minimum wage that you want to see protected, where is it not illegal to discriminate against old or handicapped workers?  There are distinct and specific laws just for these groups.

The unemployment system is well-used and by well-used you can imply over-used.  It has been shown lately to even de-incentivize folks to return to the work force.  There has to be some sort of cap and incentive to help the folks get back to work.  Even Clinton realized that folks could not just stay on the welfare system.

“Continue  far-reaching and sound advances in matters of basic human needs — expansion of social security — broadened coverage in unemployment insurance — improved housing — and better health protection for all our people. Continue to seek extension and perfection of a sound social security system.”

So, you have to show exact examples of where you think these groups are being disallowed benefits.  Then you have to answer the question of how to motivate them to get off of the programs at some point.

By and large if someone lives under a bridge they want to or have mental or addiction problems.

There are all sorts of safety nets put in place to help them.

But if you are saying everyone deserves a nice, big house and ideal healthcare — you have to ask other questions as well.  Like do they deserve a car, phone, university, vacations, or whatever else you choose tithing of.

Just because we would like everyone to live a perfect life under ideal conditions, is it really the obligation of everyone else to be asked to support this.  Does it then lower everyone into a subpar conditon.

You can only solve so many of the problems before you are stretched too thin to handle the things you have been doing.  Some things the people actually have to handle themselves. 

“Assure equal pay for equal work regardless of Sex;”

This one I want to address in particular, because it was specific and is largely used a lot by the Left without a lot of critical thinking put into it.  It is as if they have not researched it at all.

https://fee.org/articles/harvard-study-gender-pay-gap-explained-entirely-by-work-choices-of-men-and-women/

https://www.forbes.com/2006/05/12/women-wage-gap-cx_wf_0512earningmore.html?sh=164ecc5e528a

You have to be careful by just assuming and asserting this.  It is mostly a myth because it is not compared evenly.  

For example, you have to be able to prove that the female brick masons are actually doing exactly as much work as the men and are getting paid less.  

Then you have to answer the question of why there is simply not WAY MORE reverse discrimination?  Why aren’t construction contractors hiring only female masons?  They would save a LOT of money.

You would have to answer why WNBA players do not get paid the same as NBA players per minute played, etc.  You would have to answer why females actually get paid more in certain professions.  Sex workers, models, counselors, etc.

Because the bottom line is that this has been illegal since the early 1960’s and if proven can flat-out cost a company that is proved to discriminate for equal work and not being paid evenly.  There are plenty of lawyers that will gladly take cases like this pro bono.

Then, if you ‘force’ employers to pay the exact same amount even if the exact same amount of work is not being done, the next step will be to ‘force’ the hiring of equal numbers of women — even if women do not really want those jobs.  Then the production takes a huge hit.  You absolutely have to allow companies to be as productive as they can be.  They do this by hiring the best workers, period.  They also should be allowed to pay them accordingly.

“The protection of the right of workers to organize into unions and to bargain collectively.”

Where is this not protected?  This also gets somewhat complicated since it branches off in so many directions.  You have the Taft-Hartley ensuring no discrimination against folks being forced into unions just to work.  You have the right-to-work states where you are not forced to join a union but can still be employed.  You have teachers which are their own special situations.  You have government employees which are their own special situations.

Then you have the economic and financial questions that come with unions. 

Is this good or bad for the overall country’s best interest.  Or is it just the best interest of that one group of employees.  Do they eventually price themselves out of work. Etc., etc.

But, by and large, no manufacturing groups are denied organizing a union.   

So, again, I would need exact examples of where this is not protected.

“supports an immigration policy which is in keeping with the traditions of America in providing a haven for oppressed peoples, and which is based on equality of treatment, freedom from implications of discrimination between racial, nationality and religious groups, and flexible enough to conform to changing needs and conditions.”

This is absolutely in place and has been forever.  There has been a lot of tweaking and adjusting as has been deemed necessary through time.

The USA has groups that are allowed this privilege due to many factors, including oppression.  The USA certainly does not discriminate.  You can see this by the variety of places where the immigrants come from and their backgrounds and status.

This is a staple of American tradition and I think it always will be.

Now, this is LEGAL immigration.  If you are talking about allowing ILLEGAL immigration carte blanche, you will have to really make a good case of justifying this and deciding why the USA would be the only country that would allow that.

The USA and its benefits are for the ones that live there not for the rest of the world.  Too many people do not seem to understand this.

@darkhorse12

 Good stuff.  Interested in your particular replies to any specifics you can think of.

Always good to see a well thought out post.

Even though I know we do not agree politically it is always good to discuss some of these things. 

What you are??   A GOOD person             (and definitely NOT a MAGA republican)

Clearly, you make Santa's "nice" list . . .

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

so would you say I’m a lefty or a righty ? I’m guessing you would consider me a lefty,correct?

Assure equal pay for equal work regardless of Sex;”

Most companies that deal in production have a “probationary period” . If a worker regardless of sex can’t cut the mustard ,they are usually not hired to a permanent position.

As I’ve said ,I’m sure you would consider me a lefty. What’s funny is that everything I mentioned in what I believe in was taken from the 1956 Republican Platform. 

@darkhorse12

Yessir.  If you remember some time ago when the social media was picking up big during one of Obama’s runs this was a meme and a big talking point.

So, this has been addressed ad nausem.  It has been broken down basically point by point in a few places.  I think Snopes was one place that looked at this in detail.  But other political sites addressed this at the time.

But if you cannot find it and want to read one or two of these I can grab them for you.

I remember a guy telling me that he did something similar during high school or university by using his ‘platform’ during a political science class in this way.  Once he was ‘elected’ he told the class that it was the Goldwater platform that they had voted for.

Yes, you can take issues and skew them to your benefit — nearly all politicians do this.  You sort of want to give people what part of the issue they like or agree with to make them think that you are altogether in agreement — when in whole you really are not.  In part, of course you can be in agreement.

So you have to be able to compare these scenarios in part but the time and the context of them in whole.  Some local and some national issues and candidacies will vary quite a bit, for obvious reasons.

You also have to look at current laws at the time.  During Eisenhower’s time the 1963 and the 1970 laws had not been enacted, etc.

It has to be a univocal comparison as well.  

Just because at an earlier time things were needed — it does not necessarily follow that even more needs to be done.

This does not dispute that parties and platforms change over time — as do pressing issues.

This leaves out the benefits of the economic portions of the Eisenhower administration, on purpose, of course.

Of course both parties use this deceptive move.  The Republicans are always gleeful to point out that the Democrats were for slavery and for Jim Crow laws. This is not fair and it is deceptive, again it is on purpose.

But to answer your question.  Yessir, I still consider you a Lefty from what I have seen you address on the site here.  Not that there is anything wrong with that by itself.  I much prefer to discuss issues with someone that completely disagrees with me — I do not need a cheerleader on what I believe in.