The ideal Senate Democrat should have centrist views, young, a military veteran, articulate, and a family man. Prince Harry would be an example if he were a US citizen and had centrist views.
Maybe, but a centrist will not actually address the underlying issues that make actors like AfD, and the Trump-wing of the Republican party, get bigger and bigger.
To put it differently: a Bill Clinton-type might manage to get elected and be popular, but he wouldn’t do anything to keep inequality from rising even more.
Incorrect. Merz adopted a stricter stance on immigration but not as harsh as the AfD party. Likewise, a centrist Democrat could be tough on border security but give migrants already here a path to citizenship. Inequality can never be completely eliminated because people aren’t equal in talent.
Merz adopted a stricter stance on immigration but not as harsh as the AfD party. Likewise, a centrist Democrat could be tough on border security but give migrants already here a path to citizenship.
This has no bearing on what I said, I’ll repeat myself:
a centrist will not actually address the underlying issues that make actors like AfD, and the Trump-wing of the Republican party, get bigger and bigger.
Inequality can never be completely eliminated because people aren’t equal in talent
Nobody is talking about completely eliminating inequality
We are where we are because we’ve allowed inequality to increase every year since the mid-'70s. Allowing that to continue - especially without establishing an actually leftist alternative (New Deal Democrat or democratic socialist at the least) - will just make the populist right bigger and more extreme.
I did address what you said. Adopting less extreme policies of a far-right group undermine its appeal.
The tax on the wealthy can be increased to lessen inequality but only to a degree because it would decrease the motivation to be rich. Making money is the basis of the capitalist system.
I did address what you said. Adopting less extreme policies of a far-right group undermine its appeal.
Ah, okay, fair enough. In practice, though, since the fundamental problems will persist regardless of immigration policy, I think they’re still likely to keep growing in the longer run. They might also just chose to become even more extreme. I’d say we’ve seen this in Europe, with calls for “remigration” becoming part of the alt-right manifestos as mainstream politics has gotten more restrictive on immigration.
That being said, it’s not impossible to do a very progressive economic policy, combined with restrictive immigration policies.
The tax on the wealthy can be increased to lessen inequality but only to a degree because it would decrease the motivation to be rich. Making money is the basis of the capitalist system.
Well, I personally only want to go back to some version of what was the western consensus in the three decades following WW2 - I don’t think that’s very extreme really, but some people think it means I’m basically the ghost of Yosef Stalin :/
People innovated and worked hard in the 1950’s too
There is a common misconception that high-income Americans are not paying much in taxes compared to what they used to. Proponents of this view often point to the 1950s, when the top federal income tax rate was 91 percent for most of the decade.[1] However, despite these high marginal rates, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in the 1950s only paid about 42 percent of their income in taxes. As a result, the tax burden on high-income households today is only slightly lower than what these households faced in the 1950s.
Not true. Bernie Sanders was wildly popular before the DNC removed him for not being centrist/right wing enough. He would have won easily. People want a progressive candidate, not a centrist.
I’m more and more sure you’re just a bot or an intern for some pedo bootlicker the more I see your comments. Take your trash somewhere else
You seem to be weirdly disconnected from the reality of voters and it feels like you’re trying to subtly discourage anything that would be better from the current state of things.
Bernie was popular with voters in general. He would have won the primary and then the presidency if he had the chance to. People voted Trump because he promised change and Hillary just promised more of the same. People were hungry for change at (apparently) any cost and got fucked when Trump was the only option.
You mean Harris promised the same thing. At any rate, Trump won because he promised tighter border security and lower inflation. Hitler won because the Democratic Weimar Republic couldn’t control inflation. Trump like Hitler is also a great speaker. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mnBRZNAA_0
Andy Beshear would have been a better Democratic Presidential nominee. Bernie Sanders would not have done well in red states.
No, I don’t mean Harris promised the same thing, considering Sanders was nowhere near the running when Harris was. Trump won his second term not because his promises, he won because he cheated (and then publicly admitted as much.)
You either have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about or even what’s going on, or you’re just a shill trying to make it seem like nobody wanted progressive candidates. I’m done arguing with a bot
No, Prince Harry exemplifies the qualities of an ideal Democratic candidate. He is young, articulate, has a pretty, intelligent wife and two children, and a war veteran. However, his views would have to be centrist.
Prince Harry exemplifies the qualities of I mentioned except I don’t know whether his views are centrists and of course he is not a US citizen, but John F. Kennedy would be another example.
The ideal Senate Democrat should have centrist views, young, a military veteran, articulate, and a family man. Prince Harry would be an example if he were a US citizen and had centrist views.
Got to say, you lost me at centrist. Why?
Most people do not have extreme left or right views. In Germany, Merz with his centrist views beat the rising far right AfD party.
Maybe, but a centrist will not actually address the underlying issues that make actors like AfD, and the Trump-wing of the Republican party, get bigger and bigger.
To put it differently: a Bill Clinton-type might manage to get elected and be popular, but he wouldn’t do anything to keep inequality from rising even more.
Incorrect. Merz adopted a stricter stance on immigration but not as harsh as the AfD party. Likewise, a centrist Democrat could be tough on border security but give migrants already here a path to citizenship. Inequality can never be completely eliminated because people aren’t equal in talent.
This has no bearing on what I said, I’ll repeat myself:
a centrist will not actually address the underlying issues that make actors like AfD, and the Trump-wing of the Republican party, get bigger and bigger.
Nobody is talking about completely eliminating inequality
We are where we are because we’ve allowed inequality to increase every year since the mid-'70s. Allowing that to continue - especially without establishing an actually leftist alternative (New Deal Democrat or democratic socialist at the least) - will just make the populist right bigger and more extreme.
I did address what you said. Adopting less extreme policies of a far-right group undermine its appeal.
The tax on the wealthy can be increased to lessen inequality but only to a degree because it would decrease the motivation to be rich. Making money is the basis of the capitalist system.
Ah, okay, fair enough. In practice, though, since the fundamental problems will persist regardless of immigration policy, I think they’re still likely to keep growing in the longer run. They might also just chose to become even more extreme. I’d say we’ve seen this in Europe, with calls for “remigration” becoming part of the alt-right manifestos as mainstream politics has gotten more restrictive on immigration.
That being said, it’s not impossible to do a very progressive economic policy, combined with restrictive immigration policies.
Well, I personally only want to go back to some version of what was the western consensus in the three decades following WW2 - I don’t think that’s very extreme really, but some people think it means I’m basically the ghost of Yosef Stalin :/
People innovated and worked hard in the 1950’s too
If the far-right becomes more extreme, people will reject them because most people prefer moderate views.
From https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/
There is a common misconception that high-income Americans are not paying much in taxes compared to what they used to. Proponents of this view often point to the 1950s, when the top federal income tax rate was 91 percent for most of the decade.[1] However, despite these high marginal rates, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in the 1950s only paid about 42 percent of their income in taxes. As a result, the tax burden on high-income households today is only slightly lower than what these households faced in the 1950s.
Fuck centrists. We’ve had 50 years of that and look where it’s gotten us. Pick a side, fascism or the working class.
Most voters are not on the extreme left or right. The centrist Merz became chancellor of Germany.
Not true. Bernie Sanders was wildly popular before the DNC removed him for not being centrist/right wing enough. He would have won easily. People want a progressive candidate, not a centrist.
I’m more and more sure you’re just a bot or an intern for some pedo bootlicker the more I see your comments. Take your trash somewhere else
Bernie Sanders might have won the Democratic primary, but he would lost to Trump. Sanders is too far left for most Americans.
You seem to be weirdly disconnected from the reality of voters and it feels like you’re trying to subtly discourage anything that would be better from the current state of things.
Bernie was popular with voters in general. He would have won the primary and then the presidency if he had the chance to. People voted Trump because he promised change and Hillary just promised more of the same. People were hungry for change at (apparently) any cost and got fucked when Trump was the only option.
You mean Harris promised the same thing. At any rate, Trump won because he promised tighter border security and lower inflation. Hitler won because the Democratic Weimar Republic couldn’t control inflation. Trump like Hitler is also a great speaker. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mnBRZNAA_0
Andy Beshear would have been a better Democratic Presidential nominee. Bernie Sanders would not have done well in red states.
No, I don’t mean Harris promised the same thing, considering Sanders was nowhere near the running when Harris was. Trump won his second term not because his promises, he won because he cheated (and then publicly admitted as much.)
You either have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about or even what’s going on, or you’re just a shill trying to make it seem like nobody wanted progressive candidates. I’m done arguing with a bot
Because most viewers are sheep that have no balls to do what’s right
This comment has to be bait. Prince Harry? The fuck?
No, Prince Harry exemplifies the qualities of an ideal Democratic candidate. He is young, articulate, has a pretty, intelligent wife and two children, and a war veteran. However, his views would have to be centrist.
You had me until the Prince Harry part.
Prince Harry exemplifies the qualities of I mentioned except I don’t know whether his views are centrists and of course he is not a US citizen, but John F. Kennedy would be another example.