(07-20-2018 12:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-20-2018 11:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Just an opinion, but I think a lot of leftists, if presented with a choice of standing for the flag or standing for a Che' poster, would quickly and gladly chose Che'. JMHO.

Just an opinion, but I think a lot of rightests, if presented with a choice of standing for the flag or standing for the Nazi swastika, would quickly, and gladly choose the swastika. JMHO.

See, wasn't that a constructive comment? Taking the action of someone who is on the far reaches of the political spectrum and applying it to the entirety of the people who align themselves somewhere on that side of the spectrum is a really great way to foster a good dialogue!

You had asked about the history of dovishness v. hawkishness on the part, of the political parties, and I tried to provide some of that history.

I see what you're saying about each party having its sordidness, but the historical record is not neutral. For 100 years, apology and excuse-making among the political left for Communist murder has been far more prevalent, far more consistent, and far less limited to an irrelevant fringe than any comparable infatuation among the political right. It has long been de rigeur among staggeringly broad segments of academics and self-declared intellectuals, and sported as a badge of honor among younger followers. Even among those who do not espouse it themselves, it is still not generally seen as a politically disqualifying view, or even a particularly controversial one -- even as the ideology it excuses sinks (kicking and screaming, but still with not-unnoticed irony) into the dustbin of history.

All of this -- the existence and influence of the idiotic segment, and the century-long tolerance of it by the rest -- is and has been willful blindness, and there is no sign of it being redeemed. These are important historical facts that underlie our present divisions. If the "responsible" elements of the political left had not been so blind for so long, or if they had made any substantial effort since the 1990s to redeem that failure, they would not have earned (and continue to earn) the contempt of so many Americans.

By the way Lad, the iconclast idea of the Southern Strategy is not nearly as waterproof as you think.

Scads of evidence out there for the above proposition:

http://www.claremont.org/crb/article/the...publicans/

https://www.nixonfoundation.org/2009/09/...-strategy/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiprVX4os2Y

https://thekcompany.co/news-release/pres...s-racists/

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...18172.html

https://journals.openedition.org/miranda/2243

I can't get to the chapter of Ann Coulter's book on this. The highly footnoted chapter(s) there are quite illuminating, especially for one that wishes to actually look at a vast array of primary resources.

Just saying.

(07-20-2018 02:29 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-20-2018 12:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-20-2018 11:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Just an opinion, but I think a lot of leftists, if presented with a choice of standing for the flag or standing for a Che' poster, would quickly and gladly chose Che'. JMHO.

Just an opinion, but I think a lot of rightests, if presented with a choice of standing for the flag or standing for the Nazi swastika, would quickly, and gladly choose the swastika. JMHO.

See, wasn't that a constructive comment? Taking the action of someone who is on the far reaches of the political spectrum and applying it to the entirety of the people who align themselves somewhere on that side of the spectrum is a really great way to foster a good dialogue!

You had asked for history of dovishness v. hawkishness on the party of the political parties, and I tried to provide some of that history.

I see what you're saying, but the historical record is not neutral. For 100 years, apology and excuse-making among the political left for Communist murder has been far more prevalent, far more consistent, and far less limited to an irrelevant fringe than any comparable infatuation among the political right. It has long been de rigeur among staggeringly broad segments of academics and self-declared intellectuals, and sported as a badge of honor among younger followers. Even among those who do not espouse it themselves, it is still not generally seen as a politically disqualifying view, or even a particularly controversial one -- even as the ideology it excuses sinks (kicking and screaming, but still with not-unnoticed irony) into the dustbin of history.

All of this -- the existence and influence of the idiotic segment, and the century-long tolerance of it by the rest -- is and has been willful blindness, and there is no sign of it being redeemed. These are important historical facts that underlie our present divisions. If the "responsible" elements of the political left had not been so blind for so long, or if they had made any substantial effort since the 1990s to redeem that failure, they would not have earned (and continue to earn) the contempt of so many Americans.

I will definitely agree with your comment that someone saying they support communism is viewed with less controversy than say, someone saying they supported the Third Reich.

But I wasn't trying to draw a comparison to the number of people on either fringe that support the topic - I was trying to point out how pointless and unhelpful of a comment that was. It offers no real insight into the issue, except to stir the pot.

Your comment, however, offers discussion and nuance with how it discusses the prevalence of support of communism within those on the left-side of the spectrum. It's especially helpful that you identify certain industries where that seems to be more prevalent. It's far less insipid than some flippant comment about leftists preferring Che over the USA.

(07-20-2018 02:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  By the way Lad, the iconclast idea of the Southern Strategy is not nearly as waterproof as you think.

Scads of evidence out there for the above proposition:

http://www.claremont.org/crb/article/the...publicans/

https://www.nixonfoundation.org/2009/09/...-strategy/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiprVX4os2Y

https://thekcompany.co/news-release/pres...s-racists/

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...18172.html

https://journals.openedition.org/miranda/2243

I can't get to the chapter of Ann Coulter's book on this. The highly footnoted chapter(s) there are quite illuminating, especially for one that wishes to actually look at a vast array of primary resources.

Just saying.

Is your point that the fringe elements of the Republican party aren't composed of racists/neo-Nazis?

Or just that the Southern Strategy may not be what many know it as?

I will gladly stipulate my comment was "off the cuff", a term I find less emotionally charged than "flippant".

I think it stimulated some important and illuminating discussion.

and I think it is 100% accurate.

since it was not on the topic, what was the topic, anyway? We have over 4000 posts, and I think the topic has changed a few times.

(07-20-2018 02:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  What you are saying about the left is equally as true about the right.

The right has moved so far right that:

1) a former, center-right health care proposal was labeled as a socialist health care proposal full of death panels

The 'former center right' health care proposal shared exactly *one* feature with Obamacare -- the idea of mandatory and universal participation.

Quote:2) abortion rights are being curtailed because of religious purposes, as opposed to supporting a woman's right to privacy and to choose

Assuming the 'fundamental right' to an abortion even exists.

Quote:3) fiscal responsibility has given way to tax cuts without regard for their affect on the national debt

Good, You actually are somewhat accurate for one point.

Edited to add: actually not correct at all. It is a truly 'progressive' point of view to rapidly expand the spending of the central government as an inherent and equal act of the expansion of the power of that central government. So your characterization of Republicans yearning to 'spend like drunken democrats' is actually a reflection on the Republicans move leftwards on this.

This is literally the *first* time I have ever heard of this type of expansion of the spending power being being characterized as a 'so far right' thingy. Comes across as a knee jerk response. Have to dock even that point in hindsight and reflection.

Quote:4) immigration reform is no longer about reforming the system and finding a way to realistically cope with an inconvenient reality, but about building a wall (wasting money) and sticking the entire party's head in the sand

So the liberal's solution is simply to let them stay here and give everyone a pass and the right to vote.

Edited to add: again, let me reposit the question: actually enforcing the law as written 20 some-odd years ago is a 'move to the right'? The time issue here really doesnt help this statement pass the smell test, since *this* point of view (i.e. the law *as written*) is somehow a 'move' to the right, but this current 'move to the right' is rooted in enforcing a law that is well over 20 years old. Interesting twist there. Too bad we arent seeking to enforce a law that was written 80 years ago -- damn that would be an uber-move to the right.....

Quote:And I could keep going on.

So can I. By the way in your examples you are accurate or on point exactly once. But dont let that get in the way.

Quote:Yes, the left is moving left, but the right has already moved very far to the right. The rightest fringe used to the be the Tea Party, but that is not much of a fringe anymore and is very mainstream. The new fringe is now the growing nationalist movement that has hitched itself to Trump because they see a sympathetic ear in him.

By the way, you do know the difference between 'nationalism' and 'white nationalism', correct? I would find it odd that you would use the idea of 'nationalism' as fringe; I personally have zero issue with the idea of US exceptionalism, nor with the idea of promoting the place of our country to the highest level possible.

If you are trying to berate that, then your comment there is a prime example itself of the tendency of the liberal left on where it wishes to move.

If you are trying to tie the 'new fringe' to White Nationalist thought as a fringe of any sort, you are at best extremely sloppy in your characterization of that as 'nationalist', and at worst being a liberal cuck in that statement. If the latter, then I am sure you probably did go 'all in' to Hillary's statement on deplorables, since it really isnt that far off.

(07-20-2018 02:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-20-2018 02:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  By the way Lad, the iconclast idea of the Southern Strategy is not nearly as waterproof as you think.

Scads of evidence out there for the above proposition:

http://www.claremont.org/crb/article/the...publicans/

https://www.nixonfoundation.org/2009/09/...-strategy/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiprVX4os2Y

https://thekcompany.co/news-release/pres...s-racists/

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...18172.html

https://journals.openedition.org/miranda/2243

I can't get to the chapter of Ann Coulter's book on this. The highly footnoted chapter(s) there are quite illuminating, especially for one that wishes to actually look at a vast array of primary resources.

Just saying.

Is your point that the fringe elements of the Republican party aren't composed of racists/neo-Nazis?

Or just that the Southern Strategy may not be what many know it as?

The latter.

The former is just a sad attempt to tie racists/New-nazis in any way as representing anything about the republican party.

But then again the latter statement is in response to your apparent 'take it to the bank' statement or evidence re: Southern Strategy and Republican racism.

(07-20-2018 02:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-20-2018 02:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  What you are saying about the left is equally as true about the right.

The right has moved so far right that:

1) a former, center-right health care proposal was labeled as a socialist health care proposal full of death panels

The 'former center right' health care proposal shared exactly *one* feature with Obamacare -- the idea of mandatory and universal participation.

Quote:2) abortion rights are being curtailed because of religious purposes, as opposed to supporting a woman's right to privacy and to choose

Assuming the 'fundamental right' to an abortion even exists.

Quote:3) fiscal responsibility has given way to tax cuts without regard for their affect on the national debt

Good, You actually are somewhat accurate for one point.

Quote:4) immigration reform is no longer about reforming the system and finding a way to realistically cope with an inconvenient reality, but about building a wall (wasting money) and sticking the entire party's head in the sand

So the liberal's solution is simply to let them stay here and give everyone a pass and the right to vote.

Quote:And I could keep going on.

So can I. By the way in your examples you are accurate or on point exactly once. But dont let that get in the way.

Quote:Yes, the left is moving left, but the right has already moved very far to the right. The rightest fringe used to the be the Tea Party, but that is not much of a fringe anymore and is very mainstream. The new fringe is now the growing nationalist movement that has hitched itself to Trump because they see a sympathetic ear in him.

By the way, you do know the difference between 'nationalism' and 'white nationalism', correct? I would find it odd that you would use the idea of 'nationalism' as fringe; I personally have zero issue with the idea of US exceptionalism, nor with the idea of promoting the place of our country to the highest level possible.

If you are trying to berate that, then your comment there is a prime example itself of the tendency of the liberal left on where it wishes to move.

If you are trying to tie the 'new fringe' to White Nationalist thought as a fringe of any sort, you are at worst extremely sloppy in your characterization of that as 'nationalist', and at best being a liberal cuck in that statement. If the latter, then I am sure you probably did go 'all in' to Hillary's statement on deplorables, since it really isnt that far off.

Wow, never thought I’d see the phrase “liberal cuck” thrown out on this message board as a way to describe another poster.

(07-20-2018 02:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-20-2018 02:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-20-2018 02:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  By the way Lad, the iconclast idea of the Southern Strategy is not nearly as waterproof as you think.

Scads of evidence out there for the above proposition:

http://www.claremont.org/crb/article/the...publicans/

https://www.nixonfoundation.org/2009/09/...-strategy/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiprVX4os2Y

https://thekcompany.co/news-release/pres...s-racists/

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...18172.html

https://journals.openedition.org/miranda/2243

I can't get to the chapter of Ann Coulter's book on this. The highly footnoted chapter(s) there are quite illuminating, especially for one that wishes to actually look at a vast array of primary resources.

Just saying.

Is your point that the fringe elements of the Republican party aren't composed of racists/neo-Nazis?

Or just that the Southern Strategy may not be what many know it as?

The latter.

The former is just a sad attempt to tie racists/New-nazis in any way as representing anything about the republican party.

But then again the latter statement is in response to your apparent 'take it to the bank' statement or evidence re: Southern Strategy and Republican racism.

I mean, there is an avowed Nazi running as a Republican in Illinois. David Duke supports Trump and believes some of his policies match his twisted views...

I’m in no way saying that they represent even a healthy minority of Republicans, but they exist and associate with Republicans over Democrats.

(07-20-2018 02:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-20-2018 02:29 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-20-2018 12:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-20-2018 11:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Just an opinion, but I think a lot of leftists, if presented with a choice of standing for the flag or standing for a Che' poster, would quickly and gladly chose Che'. JMHO.

Just an opinion, but I think a lot of rightests, if presented with a choice of standing for the flag or standing for the Nazi swastika, would quickly, and gladly choose the swastika. JMHO.

See, wasn't that a constructive comment? Taking the action of someone who is on the far reaches of the political spectrum and applying it to the entirety of the people who align themselves somewhere on that side of the spectrum is a really great way to foster a good dialogue!

You had asked for history of dovishness v. hawkishness on the party of the political parties, and I tried to provide some of that history.

I see what you're saying, but the historical record is not neutral. For 100 years, apology and excuse-making among the political left for Communist murder has been far more prevalent, far more consistent, and far less limited to an irrelevant fringe than any comparable infatuation among the political right. It has long been de rigeur among staggeringly broad segments of academics and self-declared intellectuals, and sported as a badge of honor among younger followers. Even among those who do not espouse it themselves, it is still not generally seen as a politically disqualifying view, or even a particularly controversial one -- even as the ideology it excuses sinks (kicking and screaming, but still with not-unnoticed irony) into the dustbin of history.

All of this -- the existence and influence of the idiotic segment, and the century-long tolerance of it by the rest -- is and has been willful blindness, and there is no sign of it being redeemed. These are important historical facts that underlie our present divisions. If the "responsible" elements of the political left had not been so blind for so long, or if they had made any substantial effort since the 1990s to redeem that failure, they would not have earned (and continue to earn) the contempt of so many Americans.

I will definitely agree with your comment that someone saying they support communism is viewed with less controversy than say, someone saying they supported the Third Reich.

But I wasn't trying to draw a comparison to the number of people on either fringe that support the topic - I was trying to point out how pointless and unhelpful of a comment that was. It offers no real insight into the issue, except to stir the pot.

Your comment, however, offers discussion and nuance with how it discusses the prevalence of support of communism within those on the left-side of the spectrum. It's especially helpful that you identify certain industries where that seems to be more prevalent. It's far less insipid than some flippant comment about leftists preferring Che over the USA.

And of course the whole thing is obviously a favorite topic of mine, so I will plead guilty to being over-energized about it.

(07-20-2018 03:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  David Duke supports Trump and believes some of his policies match his twisted views...

Do you understand the logical fallacy of "David Duke supports Trump and believes some of his policies match his twisted views...".

I guess that since my late state Alzheimer's mother in law supports Beto O'Rourke and believes some of his policies match her not-so in the know views....

Cmon Lad, you can do better than that seriously lame logical argument.

(07-20-2018 03:27 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-20-2018 02:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-20-2018 02:29 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-20-2018 12:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-20-2018 11:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Just an opinion, but I think a lot of leftists, if presented with a choice of standing for the flag or standing for a Che' poster, would quickly and gladly chose Che'. JMHO.

Just an opinion, but I think a lot of rightests, if presented with a choice of standing for the flag or standing for the Nazi swastika, would quickly, and gladly choose the swastika. JMHO.

See, wasn't that a constructive comment? Taking the action of someone who is on the far reaches of the political spectrum and applying it to the entirety of the people who align themselves somewhere on that side of the spectrum is a really great way to foster a good dialogue!

You had asked for history of dovishness v. hawkishness on the party of the political parties, and I tried to provide some of that history.

I see what you're saying, but the historical record is not neutral. For 100 years, apology and excuse-making among the political left for Communist murder has been far more prevalent, far more consistent, and far less limited to an irrelevant fringe than any comparable infatuation among the political right. It has long been de rigeur among staggeringly broad segments of academics and self-declared intellectuals, and sported as a badge of honor among younger followers. Even among those who do not espouse it themselves, it is still not generally seen as a politically disqualifying view, or even a particularly controversial one -- even as the ideology it excuses sinks (kicking and screaming, but still with not-unnoticed irony) into the dustbin of history.

All of this -- the existence and influence of the idiotic segment, and the century-long tolerance of it by the rest -- is and has been willful blindness, and there is no sign of it being redeemed. These are important historical facts that underlie our present divisions. If the "responsible" elements of the political left had not been so blind for so long, or if they had made any substantial effort since the 1990s to redeem that failure, they would not have earned (and continue to earn) the contempt of so many Americans.

I will definitely agree with your comment that someone saying they support communism is viewed with less controversy than say, someone saying they supported the Third Reich.

But I wasn't trying to draw a comparison to the number of people on either fringe that support the topic - I was trying to point out how pointless and unhelpful of a comment that was. It offers no real insight into the issue, except to stir the pot.

Your comment, however, offers discussion and nuance with how it discusses the prevalence of support of communism within those on the left-side of the spectrum. It's especially helpful that you identify certain industries where that seems to be more prevalent. It's far less insipid than some flippant comment about leftists preferring Che over the USA.

And of course the whole thing is obviously a favorite topic of mine, so I will plead guilty to being over-energized about it.

It is an interesting topic, from the perspective you look at it. The fact that either so many are ignorant of the atrocities committed by communist regimes, or that so many are so willing to disassociate the inevitable outcomes from the theory. At least nowadays, I think one of the big issues is that what some call communism or socialism isn’t really actual communism or socialism, but rather a mix of capitalism and socialism, and that conflation can lead to some issues.

It’s an issue that requires some nuance to discuss, and many of us have been rather short on that recently (myself included).

(07-20-2018 03:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-20-2018 03:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  David Duke supports Trump and believes some of his policies match his twisted views...

Do you understand the logical fallacy of "David Duke supports Trump and believes some of his policies match his twisted views...".

I guess that since my late state Alzheimer's mother in law supports Beto O'Rourke and believes some of his policies match her not-so in the know views....

Cmon Lad, you can do better than that seriously lame logical argument.

Sorry, not sure this liberal cuck can do better.

I’m just a liberal cuck after all.

(07-20-2018 03:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-20-2018 03:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-20-2018 03:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  David Duke supports Trump and believes some of his policies match his twisted views...

Do you understand the logical fallacy of "David Duke supports Trump and believes some of his policies match his twisted views...".

I guess that since my late state Alzheimer's mother in law supports Beto O'Rourke and believes some of his policies match her not-so in the know views....

Cmon Lad, you can do better than that seriously lame logical argument.

Sorry, not sure this liberal cuck can do better.

I’m just a liberal cuck after all.

Perhaps you should write it off as coming from a know it all attorney blowhard.

(07-20-2018 03:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-20-2018 03:27 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-20-2018 02:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-20-2018 02:29 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-20-2018 12:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Just an opinion, but I think a lot of rightests, if presented with a choice of standing for the flag or standing for the Nazi swastika, would quickly, and gladly choose the swastika. JMHO.

See, wasn't that a constructive comment? Taking the action of someone who is on the far reaches of the political spectrum and applying it to the entirety of the people who align themselves somewhere on that side of the spectrum is a really great way to foster a good dialogue!

You had asked for history of dovishness v. hawkishness on the party of the political parties, and I tried to provide some of that history.

I see what you're saying, but the historical record is not neutral. For 100 years, apology and excuse-making among the political left for Communist murder has been far more prevalent, far more consistent, and far less limited to an irrelevant fringe than any comparable infatuation among the political right. It has long been de rigeur among staggeringly broad segments of academics and self-declared intellectuals, and sported as a badge of honor among younger followers. Even among those who do not espouse it themselves, it is still not generally seen as a politically disqualifying view, or even a particularly controversial one -- even as the ideology it excuses sinks (kicking and screaming, but still with not-unnoticed irony) into the dustbin of history.

All of this -- the existence and influence of the idiotic segment, and the century-long tolerance of it by the rest -- is and has been willful blindness, and there is no sign of it being redeemed. These are important historical facts that underlie our present divisions. If the "responsible" elements of the political left had not been so blind for so long, or if they had made any substantial effort since the 1990s to redeem that failure, they would not have earned (and continue to earn) the contempt of so many Americans.

I will definitely agree with your comment that someone saying they support communism is viewed with less controversy than say, someone saying they supported the Third Reich.

But I wasn't trying to draw a comparison to the number of people on either fringe that support the topic - I was trying to point out how pointless and unhelpful of a comment that was. It offers no real insight into the issue, except to stir the pot.

Your comment, however, offers discussion and nuance with how it discusses the prevalence of support of communism within those on the left-side of the spectrum. It's especially helpful that you identify certain industries where that seems to be more prevalent. It's far less insipid than some flippant comment about leftists preferring Che over the USA.

And of course the whole thing is obviously a favorite topic of mine, so I will plead guilty to being over-energized about it.

It is an interesting topic, from the perspective you look at it. The fact that either so many are ignorant of the atrocities committed by communist regimes, or that so many are so willing to disassociate the inevitable outcomes from the theory. At least nowadays, I think one of the big issues is that what some call communism or socialism isn’t really actual communism or socialism, but rather a mix of capitalism and socialism, and that conflation can lead to some issues.

It’s an issue that requires some nuance to discuss, and many of us have been rather short on that recently (myself included).

The actual incendiary isnt that it is supposedly these days a mix of capitalism and socialism, but the inalienable fact that all communist regimes devolve into statist rule (no matter what the economic model is), and a good vast proportion of socialist states end up in the same dictatorship bin.

That is the main problem.

(07-20-2018 03:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-20-2018 03:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-20-2018 03:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  David Duke supports Trump and believes some of his policies match his twisted views...

Do you understand the logical fallacy of "David Duke supports Trump and believes some of his policies match his twisted views...".

I guess that since my late state Alzheimer's mother in law supports Beto O'Rourke and believes some of his policies match her not-so in the know views....

Cmon Lad, you can do better than that seriously lame logical argument.

Sorry, not sure this liberal cuck can do better.

I’m just a liberal cuck after all.

Yeah and I'm a deplorable.

(07-20-2018 04:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-20-2018 03:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-20-2018 03:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-20-2018 03:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  David Duke supports Trump and believes some of his policies match his twisted views...

Do you understand the logical fallacy of "David Duke supports Trump and believes some of his policies match his twisted views...".

I guess that since my late state Alzheimer's mother in law supports Beto O'Rourke and believes some of his policies match her not-so in the know views....

Cmon Lad, you can do better than that seriously lame logical argument.

Sorry, not sure this liberal cuck can do better.

I’m just a liberal cuck after all.

Perhaps you should write it off as coming from a know it all attorney blowhard.

A deplorable, know it all attorney bitter clinger blowhard.

(07-20-2018 03:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I mean, there is an avowed Nazi running as a Republican in Illinois.

I think the great "Joliet" Jake Blue spoke for all of us when he said: "I hate Illinois Nazis!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulCw7RJ5eE8

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...li=BBnbcA1

“My image of Republicans is of a blue-collar type,” says Larry Smith, a 68-year-old weave room supervisor at Greenwood Mills Inc. in South Carolina’s third Congressional District. He voted for Democrats before, including Barack Obama in 2008, but sided with Mr. Trump in 2016. “Democrats come from more financially successful groups.”

Looks like a lot of the "deplorables" are blue collar types, who used to be Democrats.

“A lot of our workers voted for Trump,” says Neil Douglas, a Democrat who is president of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers in Middletown, Ohio. “The Democrats around here—sometimes we do feel like the party left us.”

A lot of them jumped out of the pot when the water got warmer.

Since I was told one of my posts was off-topic, I went back to post #1 to find out what the topic is.

try it. It's an eye-opener.