Not my favorite column of yours, as a review of our positions would indicate. I'm a social Democrat, as outlined in Norway or Sweden, where people are happier, live longer lives and care about people who are less fortunate (to whatever degree that really is true). I understand it's not a utopia. But when people speak of heaven, it's generally a socialist, or even a communist construct. Just doesn't work for the power/money hungry people in the now. I agree with Linda above talking about the painting of all Dems with whatever radical position the Republicans feel works in their campaigning. But I believe what "moderate" or, more literally, corporate Democrats do to their more left-leaning colleagues is reprehensible and short-sighted.
Maybe Dems can point out all the socialist programs already being run in America:
Libraries
Public Schools
Fire Departments
Police of all stripes
and the biggest, the military
Run on a platform of making sure everybody KNOWS those are socialist and NO it's not scary. Let's make these programs more efficient (personally I'm on the abolish the police and military side) and expand into healthcare and a UBI.
Not really the point here I know, but I don't think that's a really fair characterization of Troy Jackson's political journey-he's Catholic and from the more socially conservative 2nd CD, and initially held social positions one might expect given that demographic. He first ran for office as a Republican in 2000, a logger focused on labor issues, then won his first race as an independent in 2002. In 2004 he became a Democrat, mostly because of the worker issues, and the more liberal social views followed. But it's really incorrect to say he changed his social views for electoral convenience-where he's from, being anti-abortion, pro-gun and an LGBTQ skeptic ARE the issues that get you elected, as Maine is not just one big blue blob. In fact, it's *very* red in some spots, including way up north from where both he and Susan Collins hail. So I would say his evolution to a more liberal social ideology is less cynical than presented here.
Dems are saddled with everything that anyone identified as part of "the left" or as a socialist says and does. It doesn't matter whether they believe it or not, and that there is no evidence that they ever did. No matter wild or outside of the mainstream their ideas are, just one person who is labeled as part of "the left" or as a socialist, speaks for ALL Dems. They are not given the grace that repubs have - which is to speak for themselves, and given the opportunity to disavow controversial statements and actions from other cons.
Not my favorite column of yours, as a review of our positions would indicate. I'm a social Democrat, as outlined in Norway or Sweden, where people are happier, live longer lives and care about people who are less fortunate (to whatever degree that really is true). I understand it's not a utopia. But when people speak of heaven, it's generally a socialist, or even a communist construct. Just doesn't work for the power/money hungry people in the now. I agree with Linda above talking about the painting of all Dems with whatever radical position the Republicans feel works in their campaigning. But I believe what "moderate" or, more literally, corporate Democrats do to their more left-leaning colleagues is reprehensible and short-sighted.
Maybe Dems can point out all the socialist programs already being run in America:
Libraries
Public Schools
Fire Departments
Police of all stripes
and the biggest, the military
Run on a platform of making sure everybody KNOWS those are socialist and NO it's not scary. Let's make these programs more efficient (personally I'm on the abolish the police and military side) and expand into healthcare and a UBI.
Not really the point here I know, but I don't think that's a really fair characterization of Troy Jackson's political journey-he's Catholic and from the more socially conservative 2nd CD, and initially held social positions one might expect given that demographic. He first ran for office as a Republican in 2000, a logger focused on labor issues, then won his first race as an independent in 2002. In 2004 he became a Democrat, mostly because of the worker issues, and the more liberal social views followed. But it's really incorrect to say he changed his social views for electoral convenience-where he's from, being anti-abortion, pro-gun and an LGBTQ skeptic ARE the issues that get you elected, as Maine is not just one big blue blob. In fact, it's *very* red in some spots, including way up north from where both he and Susan Collins hail. So I would say his evolution to a more liberal social ideology is less cynical than presented here.
Dems are saddled with everything that anyone identified as part of "the left" or as a socialist says and does. It doesn't matter whether they believe it or not, and that there is no evidence that they ever did. No matter wild or outside of the mainstream their ideas are, just one person who is labeled as part of "the left" or as a socialist, speaks for ALL Dems. They are not given the grace that repubs have - which is to speak for themselves, and given the opportunity to disavow controversial statements and actions from other cons.
"President Roosevelt openly waged a war on crime starting in 1993."
Did he travel via time machine to do that? Or did he really die in 1945?
That thought crossed my mind as well.
It's probably a typo, and 1933 is meant.
Figured.