The Partisan Divide on Issues

[Eric the Green]

(09-05-2020, 12:41 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-04-2020, 11:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-04-2020, 12:04 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: If you valued democracy, you wouldn't be placing the integrity of it at risk by purchasing and trading for votes...

Another note about this statement, again.

We Democrats and progressives do need the votes of disadvantaged groups. So we are careful to include concern for their interests and policies that benefit them in order to shore up their votes for us. As I said before, politics involves making alliances and coalitions, especially party politics. And since progressives of all races and creeds naturally believe and agree with justice and the rights of people against power, people in disadvantaged groups are our natural allies and colleagues, and are a natural and valued part of the progressive party and/or faction. You call it purchasing and trading for votes, which implies you don't want disadvantaged groups in your coalition, and don't offer any concern for their interests or policies that benefit them. So instead you and those on your side of the aisle cater to those who scapegoat, fear or resent these groups. Seems a natural trade-off, although not a pleasant and I hope not a lasting one.

So, are you using your own tax dollars to purchase and trade for their votes or are you using our tax dollars as well? I don't mind if liberal Democrats and progressive use their own money (tax dollars) to purchase the votes and sustain the votes that they need sustain themselves and keep themselves in power. Yes, its a natural trade off that the country ( the Americans outside the liberal Democratic/ progressive bubble ) are becoming more and more aware of these days.

Yes, it needs to be a policy to which all Americans contribute, in the renewed sense that Wade Davis talked about in this interview I posted before.





Of course it would mean that some of you Republicans would pay more in taxes, as well as some of the Democrats (including now likely myself too). Unless we are forever to expand our national debt beyond all recognition, the upper middle class and the oligarchy has to pay more. We need to spend less on the military and needless wars. And we all need to contribute to a society that works for all, and not just for the few or for one race. This is what Wade Davis calls a sense of solidarity when we know that everyone in our country counts and is supported. How much more in taxes you personally Classic Xer would need to pay, I am not privy to, since I don't know what your wealth status and tax bracket is. But such taxation would not, in my choice, be unreasonable or debilitating; it would only be irritating to your ideology and your prejudice against providing tax money to non-whites and liberals who are poor.

We do need more socialism in our society, as Davis describes it. I am in agreement with him. That does not mean we need the kind of socialism that puts private enterprise out of business, especially small business. Even corporations would still exist. They just would not be in the position they are in now of controlling our politics and squeezing out all reform and progress and keeping our nation in decline, and evading their proper responsibility to the commonweal. 

An unequal country divided between rich and poor and between white and people of color, and thus in stagnation and stalemate, is not sustainable. It is not in the interest of any American of any Party. The policies of the Democratic Party needs to become again the new consensus if we are to survive as a prosperous nation, rather than a banana republic. Trickle-down, self-reliance-meme individualism and opposition to any collective action needs to be defeated at the polls from now on.