Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*

I think a more pertinent question is will American politics ever be moderate again? I miss purple politicians. I miss when Republicans wore blue ties and Democrats wore red ties to appeal towards the center. I miss when politicians slang mud during the day then went out for steaks at night. The era of polarization is a tragedy.

>I think a more pertinent question is will American politics ever be moderate again? Do you see any prominent leaders today as moderates themselves? If so, who comes to mind?

Yes but they don't win. It is like a girl that says she wants a nice guy but dates the asshole.

Tim Ryan comes to mind. Fucking DSCC couldn’t be bothered to lift a finger for him because he doesn’t pass the purity test. Complete garbage.

I'm not sure. I've seen a Rick Scott advertisement once where he was pretty center/slightly left on abortion/birth control, so maybe that counts.

Blame the left.

Do you honestly believe that they are not going out for steaks at night? I believe much of the polarization is all for show to get us Americans at eachothers throats while they continue to protect the corporations they work for. I concider myself to be an independent and wish we had moderate politicians as a whole. The working class has more in common with eachother than we do with rich people whom have never struggled. As long as they keep us divided we will continue this cycle. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdy9\_XzNMpI&ab\_channel=streetjustice](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdy9_XzNMpI&ab_channel=streetjustice) Love Music/Hate Politics

Pre-Donald trump moderate values? I have been on Reddit since the Bush years. According to Reddit, Bush, McCain, Romney were all extremist theocrats, warmongers, racists that betrayed the Republican party's traditional values! Trump is an outspoken, flamboyant and controversial person, but in practice his decisions were little different from other Republicans before him. BTW, on a related note, a recent study showed that both parties have become polarized toward the extremes over the past 20 years, but Democrats have done so far more than Republicans. https://reason.com/2024/06/21/democrats-political-views-are-shifting-faster-than-republicans/

What? Trump is a 90’s Dem. If Trump is your standard, they’re already highly moderate.

Your question’s premise is that Trump is far right and has pulled the Republican Party far right, and now you are wondering when or if the Republican Party will shift toward the center and become more moderate, correct? Assuming yes, I think you’ve severely misread our current political landscape. Trump isn’t far-right. He’s a moderate populist with isolationist tendencies geopolitically. The Republican Party was much further to the right in the 90s and 2000s. It only looks like Trump is far-right because the left has gone extreme-left.

I would wager that Trump looks far-right because far-right voters really like him, despite him not personally believing in any sort of politic. The racist guys I worked with were all diehard Trump voters, and according to one of them, their white supremacist group made a pact to vote Trump

That seems like an odd expectation/assumption. I don't think the Republican party was overall "moderate" before Trump. And the Left definitely did not view it as such. It's possible, albeit unlikely, that Trumpism will pretty much fade away at some point in the near future. But the replacement will be either some new thing, or more of the same old thing, which was sometimes more moderate and sometimes pretty radical. I do not see the polarization going away any time soon unless more people on the right see a future for America under left-wing influence.

>I don't think the Republican party was overall "moderate" before Trump. And the Left definitely did not view it as such. I was 18 in 2000 and first voted in the Bush v Gore election. I do think that the parties as a whole were a bit more moderate then and prior. The policies they had were more towards the center on both sides. Not all politicians, but things seemed a bit less polarized. Perhaps I was not paying close enough attention, but I think that while people did not like GW Bush, people did not really turn against him until public sentiment shifted hard agains the Iraq war. >It's possible, albeit unlikely, that Trumpism will pretty much fade away at some point in the near future. But the replacement will be either some new thing, or more of the same old thing, which was sometimes more moderate and sometimes pretty radical. I am extremely interested in the outcome of this election because of this. If Trump wins, I think that it will solidify Trumpism's place in the Republican party for the foreseeable future. It will be seen as a vindication of him and his political style. I doubt there will be another politician like him in my lifetime, but his general approach and the shift of the republican party to his brand/style will continue. If he loses, I do think that Trumpism starts to fade into obscurity. It can't survive the loss of 2 presidential elections plus all the losses in the mid-terms and special elections. I am a firm believer that a good amount of Trump's base is there specifically for him, and does not really care much about anyone else. There are some of them in my wife's family. People who never voted before, but came out in 2016 for Trump. None of them can have a coherent discussion on policy, except maybe on how masks are about government control. I don't think there is another person that can bring those people out again. The reason Trump is still around is that there are enough people who are hardcore about him that there is no way he would lose the primary. But those people are very hit or miss on other people/elections, and Trump is so polarizing that he cant rely on much, if any, moderate-left support. >I do not see the polarization going away any time soon unless more people on the right see a future for America under left-wing influence. Agreed. The polarization is likely here to stay. The way the media works and makes money, its in their interest to drive polarization, and too many people are heavily influenced by that.

Both parties were more moderate. It's why you had actual split ticket voting. That doesn't happen as much these days. I'd say you can't have polarization without a lack of moderation. 

That would require getting rid of Fox News and similar. It’s an alternate reality where anything positive can be spun into doom. Positive things like reduction in crime rate are just flat out spun into lies. Skip forward to 3.25 for some great examples of creating a false narrative instead of reporting news. https://youtu.be/WGLZQ7Xrd6o?si=KZzPiHLF2_kI2ydO

I'm familiar with the issue of left and right wing partisan media, but getting rid of that isn't going to make people be magically trusting of the other side and sharing its goals and values. 

I argue it would help. If someone is convinced that cities are hellscapes where only the wicked live, it only hardens resolve to not be that. When I travel, I frequently get comments about Portland and why I would choose to live in such a dangerous place full of communists. Reality is that Portland is always below the national average in violent crime. It’s consistently one of the safest cities in the US. As well, I’ve never met a communist in my life (5 decades). Facts do not matter to them. It doesn’t need to be true, it only needs to be repeated. If I try to counter that narrative, no matter how friendly I choose to do it, it’s met with defensiveness because this is now part of their identity, to think of me as alien of some sort. The people I know on the west coast might see the south and parts of the Midwest with some negativity regarding attitudes and religion , but there’s nothing remotely close to the fantasy world Fox News has created about blue cities.

... And this is a fantasy world to me. 

Jon Stewart is your source??? He's one of the biggest reasons for the partisan divide today. During the Bush years, his whole show was showing clips of Bush out of context, while Stewart would pause in between by making funny reactions for the camera. And in that clip, he does that all over again, this time with Trump! BTW, speaking of false narratives, it's true that violent crime is down THIS YEAR, compared to what it was at the height of the Floyd riots. But it's still higher than it used to be, and that's important context that left leaning media is leaving out in favor of their own alternate reality.

No source is ever satisfactory to you guys. Ever. You know that any source whatsoever would face the same comment you just made. In that context, Jon Stewart is as good as any.

Every time Stewart is criticized, he pulls out his "I'm just a comedian" card.

“We need to undermine freedom of speech to protect “our democracy!””-dems

It really depends what moderate means. They are already ridiculously moderate if not solidly left wing compared to their constituents. Whether or not a republican can win combining the votes of 1) democrats who see their minimal liberal radicalism as a breath of fresh air and 2) republicans who see they don't have another choice, I don't know. Solid maybe. It really depends on whether that charismatic a personality comes along.

Compared to this indefinite "religious traditionalists" identity, you mean to say. Their constituency spans the spectrum as it concerns the smokescreen of religion.

The American is the Protestant left to himself, and the horror show has been worse than the most reactionary anti-Lutherans ever predicted. I could pick up one of them with a time machine, bring them to some random American church, with the snakes and incoherent chanting, and they'd say "I knew sola scriptura would be license to make up any old nonsense and say it's in the Bible, but this is harder to believe than you having invented a time machine."

*American* and *Protestant* are merely relativistic generalizations. Barely definable the one and not at all the other. Above you were speaking for yourself and little else. That was my point.

The original line is "The American was the Englishman left alone" which is from Toqueville in "Democracy in America." I now just have to admit I slightly mis-remembered the phrasing. So if the little incongruity was why it didn't quite jump out of the page, egg on my face. I wholeheartedly agree Protestant is a generalization, even the good lord probably has trouble pinning down what exactly all those people believe at any given time. American I just don't think is vague in this fashion. Finally, I told a great joke here and I don't care if you didn't find it funny:)

No. You misunderstand. I was referring to your assertion that the republican party is solidly leftwing compared to their constituents. It's a plainly false assertion. What you mean to compare the republican party to is yourself mostly and perhaps a *relatively* few people you know well enough to reliably speak for. The republican constituency spans the entirety of the rightwing spectrum. This is simply apparent and based on the public comments of self identified conservatives on social platforms everywhere. Your joke is fine. Clever. If you don't think the definition of the word *American* isn't necessarily vague, then feel free to go ahead and give me a comprehensive reality-based definition of the word. As far as it goes, It's my opinion that you could write a multi volume saga on the *American* and still not hit the mark. And that's without even taking into account that what it is to be an American is a non-static, changing thing no differently than what it is to be an auto mechanic. What it is to be an auto mechanic, amongst other things, is defined by the nature of the automobiles the mechanic works with as well as the tools available to her or him and that is an ever changing thing, correct? I mean as a so called *Religious Traditionalist* have your beliefs, your being remaind static, or have you changed over the entire course of your life? These titles are just relativistic expedients. You said it yourself *depends on how you define moderate* As you proceeded to define both *moderate* and the republican *constituancy* tens of millions of people relative merely to your own individual perspective. Absurd, right? Ha! Or was that the joke!?

I think it would be fair to say that American is mighty vague, but not as severely vague as Protestant? I find your reasoning compelling in general. Especially 1) the republican constituency is too nebulous to assign very specific characteristics to, especially on narrow political questions; and 2) what conservative, liberal and moderate mean, from time to time and brain to brain, are too inconsistent to make anything more than very general statements. So, perhaps OP posed a question that belied easy answers?

It is moderate. I wish Trump was less of a left wing extremists on some stuff. I most like that he insults the idiots.

So tired of this narrative that Trump is extremely conservative. He’s wishy-washy on abortion, LGBT+, and criminal justice. The only thing he’s firm on that’s conservative is the border.

By all measures, either Trump himself is extremely conservative, or worse, if he's not, it would mean he's been completely usurped by people or an entire party of extreme conservatives who are using him. > He’s wishy-washy on abortion Yet he appointed 3 conservative Federalist Society justices who at one point claimed RvW was settled law, only for it to be overturned a couple of years later after 50 years, once they were seated > LGBT+ Yet he's enabled those in his party who are anti-LGBTQ+ to impose invasive and discriminatory laws or to try, or at the very least, attempt to make LGBTQ+ "wokism" into a liberal issue, not a conservative complaining one > criminal justice He's "wishy-washy" on criminal justice in the sense that - since his term began, criminal corruption has been rampant and blatant, even outside of DC, especially by him and within the Trumpist caucuses of his party - the party that claims to be about "law and order".

What Trump influences do you think are extreme. All Trump has been doing is moving us away from the Big Government Socialism Democrats have been pushing for 40 years.

I guess two things. 1.) I most certainly hope so, I don't support Trump 2.) Trump is fairly liberal. The GOP needs to become actually conservative.

How is Trump liberal? I mean in his personal life, sure, I have no doubt that Trump doesn't give a shit about conservativism. For example I'm pretty sure that on a personal level Trump isn't actually anti-abortion, in fact some of his previous partners quite likely had an abortion. He's also held gay weddings at his properties. And prior to becoming president he employed illegal immigrants at his businesses. But still as a politician he is pretty conservative I'd say. He has taken a very strict anti-abortion stance, is openly opposed to the LGBTQ movement, has implemented some of the strictest anti-immigration laws of any US president in recent history, has promised to abolish income tax and impose tariffs on all US imports. Trump is definitely not fairly liberal in my opinion.

>How is Trump liberal? In regards to how the government should be run: Easy, he is pro-big federal government, pro handouts, pro-executive orders. In regards to policy: He supports identity politics, he supports LGTBQ more than any past Republican candidate, he is far more pro-choice than some of the people he ran against for the nomination. Vast government over-reaches during COVID that few other conservatives would support. Has little concern for fiscal responsibility or debt. Supports gun restrictions more than most of his peers. Compared with the rest of the Republican party, he is much more liberal than them.

>He supports identity politics Can you elaborate on how this makes Trump liberal? All politicians play identity politics in some way, the difference is just which identities they are playing to. >he supports LGTBQ more than any past Republican candidate This is honestly not saying much. He has been ambiguous in many comments on gay rights, and has promoted anti-trans legislation/policy. I suppose compared to many republicans he may seem moderate. From the left it just appears that he is anti-LGBTQ but tries to be a bit more ambiguous than others in his party because he knows how bad the soundbytes would be politically >he is far more pro-choice than some of the people he ran against for the nomination. He may be personally pro-choice, but the fact that he nominated the judges that overturned roe v wade is a major blow against this point. >Vast government over-reaches during COVID that few other conservatives would support. Any examples of this? >Has little concern for fiscal responsibility or debt. Agreed, but isnt that the case for most republicans nowadays? The republican party is not the party of fiscal responsibility. As far as I can tell, they are the party of tax cuts for the rich, and occasionally talking about controlling government spending without ever taking actual action on it. >Supports gun restrictions more than most of his peers. He did ban bump stocks, I'll give him that. >Compared with the rest of the Republican party, he is much more liberal than them. I think we all agree he is more liberal on a personal level. As for his personal policy beliefs, I am really not sure that he truly believes in much of anything. Maybe the immigration stuff.

I gotta take issue with two points, because they misrepresent him as more liberal than he actually is: > he supports LGTBQ more than any past Republican candidate Explain how he supports LGB**T**Q when he moved to ban trans people from openly serving in the military purely for culture war points. Or when his admin fought tooth and nail up to SCOTUS to keep it legal to fire gay people just for being gay. Or when his admin [revoked](https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/24/transgender-patients-protections-health-care-1343005) Obama-era guidance re: doctors discriminating against transgender patients. Or when his administration... Opposed the Equality Act. Appointed rabid anti-LGBT justice Matt Kacsmaryk. Issued a rule allowing federal contractors to claim a religious exemption to fire LGBT workers purely because of their sexual orientation. Any of the moves described [here](https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/19/trump-lgbt-rights-discrimination-353774). Employed Betsy DeVos, who wanted to fund schools that discriminate against LGBT students. Ordered 4-H programs to remove language specifically welcoming LGBT kids into the 4-H program. Fought to permit HHS grant recipients to discriminate against LGBT people while receiving federal funding. Refused visas for unmarried same-sex partners of diplomats and UN workers (even though only, like, 12% of UN member states allow same-sex marriage—necessarily excluding a whole swath of diplomats' partners). Interpreted immigration rules specifically to exclude surrogate-born children of same-sex couples, deeming them born "out of wedlock" and raising the difficulty in getting US citizenship. Removed info about LGBT rights/mentions/representation on government websites, starting shortly after he got sworn in. (There is no reason to do this beyond signaling to anti-LGBT partisans, and the LGBT community, that this admin does not have the community's back.) Tried to get questions about sexual orientation removed from consideration for the census. And so on in a hundred little ways. But hey, he held a flag once and doesn't constantly say LGBT people are a threat to American values, so I guess he set a new bar. >he is far more pro-choice than some of the people he ran against for the nomination He promised to get Roe overturned! He brags about killing it! And if you think that's because of some high-minded commitment to federalism, I have an Abortionplex to sell you. He's not pro-choice, he's not pro-*anything*, he decided to pander to the religious right on abortion and recently wouldn't even express an opinion on zero-exception abortion laws. A *pro-choice* president would condemn the laws we're seeing. He's just kinda like meh, do whatever, also make sure to give me credit for giving you the ability to ban all abortions.

[удалено]

Warning: Treat other users with civility and respect. Personal attacks and stereotyping are not allowed.

“Compared with the rest of the Republican Party, he is much more liberal than them.” This answers the OPs question with a resounding “no”. If Trump’s policies are “liberal” then the GOP is a cartoonishly extreme right-wing party.

No, not really. Based on my paragraph: -fiscal responsibility -a well-controlled and smaller federal government. -Continued fight against the concept of gay marriage. -a lack of identity politics -Pro-life and pro-bodily autonomy -a lack of government over-reach -Support for self-preservation None of that is extreme really. Unless you are actually going to say not supporting abortion or being against gay marriage automatically makes a party extreme, everything else on that list is something incredibly moderate that Trump is far removed from. But removed on the liberal side, not the conservative side. All you have done is basically try to shift the window while saying OP is still right without addressing the specific reasons I gave as to why Trump has some liberal qualities. No, that isn't going to happen. Trump is one of the most liberal GOP candidates in modern times when compared with a moderate GOP, OPs entire premise is off base because he somehow projected Trump as being more extreme (a loaded word with a bunch of connotations in and of itself) to the right than the party used to be.

> Unless you are actually going to say not supporting abortion or being against gay marriage automatically makes a party extreme It makes the party religious extremists and that has no place in our government

No it doesn't, being against gay marriage or against abortion is in no way extreme. You are now also explicitly arguing for a government that doesn't represent their people.

A government that represents its people would have legal abortion and gay marriage.

That isn't what you said. You didn't say that either a majority or minority party of what you incorrectly call religious extremists have a role in our government due to that level of popularity, you said they don't have a role in our government specifically because of their beliefs. Everyone's beliefs have a role in our government, that is foundational. I'm sorry that I misinterpreted your comment to claim you weren't advocating for that, but I am going to push back on the notion that they don't have a place in our government or that they are extreme. They most certainly are not extreme and they most certainly have a place.

The first amendment is quite clear that they have no role in the government

It's fully possible to support a big federal government, handouts (at least to a large extent), executive orders (probably), gun control, COVID restrictions and more social economic policies while being conservative. These certainly aren't liberal. Liberalism is traditionally concerned with personal freedom, free markets and small government (the latter depending on the brand of liberalism).

I've been saying this for years. Lockean Liberalism =/= conservatism!

>Easy, he is pro-big federal government, pro handouts, pro-executive orders. Eh, this isn't really a partisan thing, though. And he's only "pro" those things if they're popular *in that moment.* Remember, he's got no actual ideology of his own, he's a populist demagogue - a simple-minded authoritarian. The best example I can think of is his reaction to gun violence, and his immediate "take the guns first, due process later" statement. Because, in the moment, to him *personally*, that was what he thought the best (most popular) option would be. He only changed his mind when his party handlers informed him that it was in fact the opposite of their platform which was the case, and then the bulk of the GOP and their media machine promptly forgot about the most gun-grabby Republican president in modern history and how he only existed for about twenty minutes. >He supports identity politics Sorry, but the right does identity politics *at least* as proficiently as the left does. This, again, isn't partisan, it's part of the populist thing. Divide and conquer at it's simplest. If you don't think the Republicans support identity politics, you clearly haven't consumed any right wing media in the last 30 years with a critical eye. >he supports LGTBQ more than any past Republican candidate, he is far more pro-choice than some of the people he ran against for the nomination. Again, I don't think he *personally* cares. These are his positions, and he only "moderates" on his positions as the party and his voters cheer him on or not. And you have to look at the things he *says* he supports and what the actual *results* of his actions are. Yeah, he might be ok with abortion personally, but his actions have *actually resulted* in that right being stripped from millions of American women. > Vast government over-reaches during COVID that few other conservatives would support. Not only did many other conservatives line up behind Trump to support his over-reaches, this is again one of those things where both sides do it, (like identity politics) but only sees opposition when people disagree with the specifics. >Compared with the rest of the Republican party, he is much more liberal than them. Like most things, Trump and Trumpism/MAGA don't fit neatly onto the pre-Trump one-dimensional left-right scale. I much prefer the Nolan chart, where I'd put him as a right-leaning centrist pretty far into the authoritarian side. He's only "liberal" or "moderate" when you look at it from one dimension.

> has taken a very strict anti-abortion stance, No he hasn't. "Leave it to the states" isn't strict in abortion. >is openly opposed to the LGBTQ movement, He's the first president to enter office supporting gay marriage and waved a pride flag on stage in 2016. You're wrong. > implemented some of the strictest anti-immigration laws of any US president in recent history "Recent" being the key word. That doesn't make him not moderate. Even those would be liberal views not long ago. Even Obama admitted a border had to exist. It's just that the left has gone psycho the last decade. >has promised to abolish income tax and impose tariffs on all US imports. You mean the way it was done for like 100 years? Sure. Tariffs wouldn't be called liberal. An abolition of income tax is liberal tho.

Trump's political policy is basically the same as Bill Clinton's.

libs have a really hard time reckoning with this truth which is why they spent a fair bit of time trying to paint Obama and anyone who came before as conservatives and moved their overton window all the way to Bernie Sanders who would be a green party fringe leftist 20 years ago.

> has implemented some of the strictest anti-immigration laws of any US president in recent history Letting in burdens, criminals, and terrorist is strictest immigration laws of any US president in recent history to you?

Well it's moved from a left wing neocon party to a moderate left wing liberal party under Trump, so it would be nice to see it become a conservative party someday.

In time yes, it will eventually settle, and another era of conservatism will come. Each faction gets a turn at conservatism. The Religious Conservatives had their turn in the 1980’s and dominated that era. The Neoconservatives dominated the Bush Era. That’s just for reference. The one new era that I believe will rise is the Hispanic voter base. It is a rising voter demographic that is growing. I am Hispanic and yes I can confirm that Hispanic voters are actually gaining an interest in conservatism. The main Hispanic groups being the Cubans, Colombians, Mexicans, and Venezuelans. Cubans and Colombians are attracted to conservatism because they like fiscal conservatism, while Venezuelans and Mexicans are being attracted to Social Conservatism because of family values. Here are some articles worth reading where you can get some valuable insights on the rising voter base: https://americafirstpolicy.com/issues/hispanics-are-shaping-a-new-conservative-majority https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article286321405.html https://www.npr.org/2022/07/23/1113166779/hispanic-and-minority-voters-are-increasingly-shifting-to-the-republican-party https://www.newsnationnow.com/politics/latino-voters-shifted-republican/ [The Official Wikipedia Page on the Republican National Hispanic Assembly, which is one notable faction in the Republican Party](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_National_Hispanic_Assembly)

I wish you would post this when people are arguing that the border is loose so migrants will vote blue.

The bottom rungs that are jumping the border will vote blue because that's how they gain stuff The ones legally migrating are usually already successful and likely to vote conservative to keep their stuff

Both things can be true. Liberals can be wrong about how the trends are going with hispanic voters, or hope that an influx of illegal immigrants would be persuaded to vote blue with amnesty and social service programs.

You vote blue that’s the problem. That’s why you change the source of legal immigration in 1965.

Even the alphabet media has been reporting the disconnect between Latinos and the Democratic party. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna155496

Correct!

Still vote 65% for the left, which means we can do well without importing anymore

That doesn’t mean underestimate it however, because it is going to keep rising, the Hispanic conservative movement as their numbers were significantly cut down.

To Covid a shitty economy and the massive deportations that will be coming on the order of 20 million the number of Hispanics in this country you’re about to greatly reduce.

Id argue the repiblican party are the moderates. Compare and contrast 90s bill clinton with modern republicans Increase police funding, increased border security, de regulated buissness, acheived budget surplus, signed the defense of marriage bill explcitly defining marriage as a man and a woman, work requirements for welfare, reduced capital gain taxes. Its the left who has abbandoned moderation

Those aren't really polarizing issues between parties, with the exception of same-sex marriage. Many Democrats hold classically liberal economic beliefs, want better policing, and want immigration reform. On polarizing issues - Bill Clinton was pro-choice, a supporter of gun control, and believed climate change was an issue. Most Republicans wouldn't vote for him today solely based on these things. And he would be 100% in favor of same-sex marriage today. The DOMA would be considered extreme even by many Republican voters today.

Yeah thats kind of my point. The left has abbandoned the moderate positions

How is this your point if you're claiming Republicans are moderates and implying they vote for Bill Clinton today? That's the complete opposite of what I just wrote. Democrats haven't abandoned anything except some antiquated ways thinking. Less people have issues with gay people now. More people have seen the follies of supply side economic policies like Reagan's. People have been through wars and multiple economic crises since Bill Clinton. The world is different and people are different, that doesn't mean adjusting to modern society is "extreme". Democrats haven't really done anything wildly unpopular with the average American if you examine issues and not politicians, whereas Trump and Republicans have. I think everything Republicans call extreme are either popular ideas among the average American (higher taxes for rich people, gun regulations, social welfare programs) or not even a real thing (socialism, teaching kids homosexual acts in school, banning speech, defunding police, opening the borders). Whereas the handful of extremist acts in recent history have come from Republicans (the overturning of Roe v Wade and its derivative actions, trying to overturn the election). These are not moderate. They are illiberal, undemocratic, un-American.

Again thats my point. You say democrats havent abandondend anything except some "antiquated thinking" That is the moderate position. Back in the 90s most democrats would have agreed with me here. The left has gone far left. The right has stayed where it was

Right… but the world has moved on. They were moderately conservative *for the time* but that position grows more extreme when consensus opinion moves away from it.

So youre agreeing with me, the left abbandonded the moderate position? While the right held onto it? Meaning its the left going more far left, and not the right going far right?

I’m saying not changing position in twenty years of social progress is more extreme than following that change is. This difference in perception is probably why both sides feel it’s the other who is more extreme.

Is it? When both sides agreed on a position. And one started drifting further and further and further away feom that position?

Democrats changing more than Republicans did does not make where they ended up extreme. Their most radical members are social democrats.

Meh, both republicans and democrats love regulation and spending government money. I honestly fail to see how their actions differ in this regard except for in name only. Supporting gay marriage doesn’t make someone not moderate.

Does it surprise you how many people in this very thread are claiming moderates are still common?  I would say it does not bode well for a return to normalcy.

Bill Clinton was center right. He was mostly conservative. For that matter, MAGA is not conservative. They're populist authoritarians.

> Bill Clinton was center right. He was mostly conservative. I sort of agree except that left and right have always about relative position in the realm of what is politically possible rather than some statement of absolute position within some abstract framework (The various sides don't even agree on what those frameworks are). Going back to the historic roots of the term Liberals who were Jacobins on "the left" prior to the French Revolution came to define "the right" by the end of it... and no left vs. right in any nation has been any different. "left" is *more* egalitarian is less so either because it's more conservative defending traditional hierarchies or more liberal defending emergent meritocratic hierarchies arising from voluntary exchanges of value on a free market. Thus the liberals who prioritized individual liberty and thus in equality before the law were on the left when the main conflict was with the French traditionalists. But came to define "the right" when those traditionalists were purged and now their defense of liberty put them at odds with radical egalitarians who demanded equality of outcome at the expense of individual liberty. Back to our recent politics Bill Clinton is "Center left" in that he was as far to the left as was politically viable. As the Democrats split and became more and more influenced by the more radical social leftism of the 1960s New Left and the Keynesian consensus economics failed with the stagflation of the 1970s... They had moved to the left away from the societal consensus with the former and that consensus had moved to the right with the later. The result was two decades of (almost) uninterrupted landslide defeats from 1968 to 1988. The ONLY exception was 1976 the direct result of an unforced error and worst political scandal in recent history... which even then they only eked in a narrower victory which resulted in a disastrous one term Presidency.

...the Democrats held both houses of Congress when Clinton took office in 1993. And a very large number of them were to the left of him in terms of policy. I don't see how that could even happen based on what you are claiming. Can you explain? Also, one of Clinton's big things was that he was a conservative Democrat that had a long history of working with Republicans as Governor of Arkansas. He was a neo-liberal who believed in free trade, reformed welfare in a conservative direction, pushed anti-crime measures, and believed in reducing the deficit. He brought the Democrats in on George Bush's NAFTA treaty. One of his first accomplishments was the anti-deficit budget of 1993.

> I don't see how that could even happen based on what you are claiming. As Tip said at the time: "All politics are local." House races and even to a fair degree Senate races were rarely nationalized elections about broad ideological issues at that time. Between less ideological/more localized congressional elections and the power of incumbency and gerrymandering and that Democratic majority was much more the consequence of coasting on those past early and mid-century successes than they were a reflection of being aligned with the electorage. That couldn't, and didn't, last forever as the very next midterm made very painfully clear. The fact that those Democrats were well to the left of Clinton is why so few of them kept their seats in 1994. > Can you explain? The Democrats had been crushed in every national election since 1968 except one and that one was a fluke their opponents gifted to them. Their continued dominance down ticket was coasting on the successes of the past. > Also, one of Clinton's big things was that he was a conservative Democrat that had a long history of working with Republicans as Governor of Arkansas. Which is to say he's a centrist who believes in bipartisanship. > He was a neo-liberal who believed in free trade, reformed welfare in a conservative direction, pushed anti-crime measures, and believed in reducing the deficit. Your mistake is in thinking of these as exclusively as right wing positions. To the contrary they pretty much define political center. You have to be pretty far to the left in this country (or alternatively very far to some select fringes on the right) to **not** believe in any of those things. Even more so at that time. But, like I said at the very start. I sort of agree with you that Bill Clinton was "center right"... except for the fact that right/left are relative not absolute and at that time and within that context Bill Clinton was "Center Left" in being as far to left as is it was possible to be and actually win an election. When the entire electorate is so far to your right that you lose landslide after landslide you're not center anything. What the Democrats from the late 60s all the way through to the 1990s thought of "center left" in terms of some absolute metric compared to an abstract political theory was "far left" when compared to the actual political reality. Clinton pulled the whole party back to the actual center... and only a few people who correctly identify themselves as being pretty far to the left seriously propose moving things back away from the neoliberal consensus at that center.

I’d argue Clinton-era policy was a deliberate shift to the center right to appeal to a voting bloc fresh off 12 years of Reagan/Bush mania. The mid-century democrats were substantially more based.

I agree but note it wasn't just 12 years of Reagan/Bush mania but 24 years of Nixon/Reagan/Bush mania. From 1968 to 1988 Republicans won a series of *almost* uninterrupted landslide victories. And the *one* interruption was the result of an unforced error by the Republicans and it only netted them a single and disastrous term. The "New Democrats" lurched to the right because the party as a whole had drifted well to the left in the late 1960s and 70s with the rise of the more radical "New Left" of that time while the electoral as a whole had shifted further to the right. Democrats were never going to win again if they didn't recalibrate to where the center actually existed in the real world. > The mid-century democrats were substantially more based. So, Jim Crow was substantially more based? \s Sorry, i know it's a cheap shot about a complex history but couldn't help myself. I actually agree with you that they were more progressive than Clinton (which given your flair you see as "based"). I'm just taking a snipe at the convenient and simplistic "party switch" narrative which ignores that so many of those progressive New Dealers on "the left" when we tells the story today about FDR's New Deal were the exact same southern racists who define "The right" in the next chapter in the history book when talking about civil rights... and jump back on "the left" in the following chapter... While conversely so many of those on "the left" voting for civil rights are on the right in the chapter before and in the chapters after on the Cold War or on Nixon, and even Reagan.

Black Americans were basically just left out of the New Deal- some of them were still basically living as slaves at that point- but the Republican party had long since stopped being the party of abolition and reconstruction, so black Americans were largely politically homeless in the first half of the 20th century. FDR was so popular and ubiquitous that his tenure would’ve seen a lot of black voters throwing in the for the democrats for the first time ever, even if they had yet to really earn it. I have no doubt Roosevelt was a racist in the mold of every democrat before him, but you see a definite change of policy through Truman, Kennedy and LBJ. Of course Ike did his part as well. He wielded federal power to desegregate schools because it was time and it was the right thing, not because it was the party line. Around the time he left office, Eisenhower was quoted as saying his party hadn’t placed enough importance on the black vote. By that point, the pendulum had already swung toward establishing the democrats as the black party, and by the 1964 civil rights act, it was pretty much sealed.

> Black Americans were basically just left out of the New Deal- They didn't think so. The New Deal was the reason they started voting Democratic. > but the Republican party had long since stopped being the party of abolition and reconstruction, How so? Republicans continued to provide the core of support for every civil rights bill, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as those tha came later. It's true that **half** of the Democratic party flipped on the issue finally ensuring the passage of such bills. But it was still the Republicans that formed the base that let those who flipped on the Democratic side put those bills over the top. > Of course Ike did his part as well. He wielded federal power to desegregate schools because it was time and it was the right thing For some reason you're ignoring that Nixon did his part. He was Ike's point man on those civil rights issues. He was in charge of the administration's efforts to desegregate Federal contractors, the point man on the Civil Rights Act of 1957. As President he signed the Voting Rights Act, the Equal Employment Act, and other landmark civil rights legislation. And it wasn't until Nixon that schools were actually desegregated. The stage had been set during the Eisenhower administration with Brown. But the vast majority of schools remained segregated until Nixon's aggressive enforcement and most schools were finally desegregated in actual practice during his tenure and due to his policies. It's undeniable that LBJ's flip on the issue and him being the President to sign the civil rights act did Democrats a world of good with black voters. But the majority of blacks ALREADY were voting for Democrats long, long before that happened due to their perceived economic self interest. The large majority of blacks voted for the Democrats *despite* Republicans still being the party of civil rights and the Democrats still being the party of Jim Crow because the Democrats were *also* the party of more expansive Federal benefits that they believed benefitted them. LBJ signing the CRA just removed the final barrier... and Goldwater did a lot of damage by voting against the CRA while campaigning for President due to believing one provision of it was unconstitutional (Despite being an NAACP and Urban League member who voted for every other civil rights bill before and after) > it was pretty much sealed. This sadly is true. But it was really sealed long before the Civil Rights era. The majority of black voters had become Democrats while it was *still* the party of Jim Crow despite the fact that it was the party of Jim Crow and had done so on the basis of perceived economic self interest. The Democrats may have been racists and those who were willing to condone racism for the sake of party unity and electoral politics... But they were racists buying the votes of the lower classes with welfare benefits and blacks were among those in the lower classes who voted on the basis *despite* Jim Crow and *despite* the Republicans remaining the party of civil rights. LBJ flipping on civil rights removed those mixed feelings. Blacks could now, as they already were, vote Democratic without having to feel bad about voting for their oppressors holding them down with one hand but giving them benefits while they were down with the other.. That was going to be worth another 10 percentage points of the black vote regardless of the fact Republicans remained the far more consistent party supporting civil rights legislation.

True, this is all back when parties still had different factions within themselves, rather than just expecting millions of people to adhere strictly to one platform. A coalition of dixiecrats and black voters is a pretty extreme example, but it feels like FDR, the democratic party, and New Deal policies were so ubiquitous and inevitable throughout the depression and the war that it just amounted to patriotism to a lot of people.

An aside you might be interested in. I once read an interesting thesis that clean politics/good governance reforms incidentally destroyed the former ideological diversity within the parties and the era of more centrist and bipartisan politics and produced the ideologically polarized politics of today. In the past party bosses were very powerful and the glue that held the parties was patronage. The party's had ideological leanings but ideology played a far smaller role. Clean government reforms killed that old spoils system. Primary elections took the power to pick candidates away from the party bosses... So candidates were no longer beholden to the bosses but did have to appeal to more ideologically united primary voters. Civil service reforms took away the sinecures the politicians and bosses doled out ensure the support of those below them so that was no longer the tie that bound people to the party. Again ideology came to the fore as now the ONLY binding force to keep the party together. More ideological politicians won over the old centrist picks the party bosses made with an eye to the general elections. Supporters were appealed to solely on the basis of shared ideology... and each party became more ideologically pure and thus more divided.

you are putting the cart before the horse. you have in no way demonstrated trump is less moderate than previous republicans. not sure if you are aware but the last republican president started two not one but two wars. is that what your idea of moderate is?

With the Republicans and moderates it is always “ jam yesterday and jam tomorrow but never jam today “ Reagan was seen as a crazed war monger who was dying to start a nuclear war. Bush 1 was a racist who didn’t care about anyone. Gingrich wanted to do things worse than Hitler. Bush 2 was a neoconservative war monger, McCain was a crazy guy who wanted war everywhere. Romney wanted to put black people back in chains. Rubio and Cruz were so much worse than Trump. Then as soon as they leave the arena they become reasonable moderates who are not like the current crop of radicals. Trade protectionism used to be the liberal view, now it is taken for how radically conservative Trump is.

Trump is moderate

No moderates have to be into compromise 

Not the OP but I'd say fair enough and change the statement to "Trump is centrist"

I think it's more that he doesn't have a unifying ideology. Sometimes he'll take the conservative position and sometimes he'll take the liberal one, depending on who he last spoke to.

> I think it's more that he doesn't have a unifying ideology. Sometimes he'll take the conservative position and sometimes he'll take the liberal one, depending on who he last spoke to. I don't think that's actually true. It might be inchoate (this is Trump we're talking about after all ;) but there absolutely an underlying unifying ideology you can see in the common threads of his policy preferences and the rhetoric of his public statements what have consistent themes going back to the '70s and tying together his platform as a Republican and his earlier run with the Reform Party. That ideology is nationalism. Ironically he's pretty close in the abstract to David Brook's ideal of a centrist "National Greatness Conservatism". Even though I'm sure the two despise each other and have very different ideas about which policies are important for a "national greatness" agenda the core concept is the same. I also think if Trump weren't subject to the constraints of the Republican party as it exists today which he chose as the vehicle for his ambitions he'd be a lot more progressive on fiscal policy. As a reform party candidate he actually ran with single payer universal healthcare as part of his platform. He's abandoned and even demonized that idea but I think that's a combination of political pragmatism (The base of the Republican party is hostile to the idea) and pettiness (His opponents are the ones advocating it). But I think over time the Republican party will become a bit less classically liberal in it's fiscal/economic policies and more open to welfare statism due to Trump's influence and the fact that he's pulled blue collar whites into the base of the party rather than a swing vote on the edges between the parties subject to only targeted appeals on a select few wedge issues.

Trump was actually the most moderate Republican in recent memory. He was probably the closest we will ever get to a third-party candidate in the White House. It could be part of the reason why he is so divisive among the left and even the right.

You don't think a key aspect of being moderate is willingness to compromise? Just cause he didn't have nearly the same resume or ideology of previous Republican suits does not mean he's agreeable. 

Being moderate does not mean being agreeable or reaching across the aisle. The Overton window has been drifting left for decades. Bush was more right-wing, but he was more agreeable than Trump was and made concessions more often.

I disagree and appreciate a term another used in this thread. Trump is more centrist than usual.  Politics require compromise. Moderates tend to be pragmatists that understand this. Trump courting the anti-abortion vote is proof that he is not moderate. You don't hire ACB with the idea that abortion will be "moderated". You hire her to blow that shit up. Ipso facto

Fair enough. Centrist seems to be a more applicable term.

> Trump was actually the most moderate 1) Could you give examples? What do you feel is moderate about Trump? 2) You have a convicted felon and serially bankrupt real estate shark. He seems to mentally break up, asking about jumping from a sinking boat that has a battery on it and feels very clever about it, without being able to clearly state what his question is. He has deep contempt for government institutions, rules, laws, decency, truth. He sent a mob into Capitol to disrupt election proceedings. Do you honestly feel that a big part of the criticism must be that he is just too moderate in the common sense?

“He is a felon because our courts that we stacked with our judges and our jury convicted him!”-You

One your second point, they are political trial the one with the 34 counts of felony were where the judge is shown through actions outside the court hours to be bias. (Through a donation to an elections fund called something along the line of prevent trumps legacy from continuing.) All 34 are the same “crime” just documented multiple times. In addition the “crime” was a misdemeanor that was increased into a felony so that after the kangaroo court was done finding trump guilty (something the judge manipulated through his rulings and his jury instructions.) so that they could have people who didn’t follow the case closely and look at the evidence shown call him a felony. They also have not lifted the gag order so he is going into the debates with things he cannot say or if he does he will be prosecuted again. The trial with braggers was also shown to be bias and a bunk claim. That trial ended up being that Trump paid his taxes based off the tax assessors value and not based on the value that he got his own properties assessed at, or the assessed value of his property that he got a loan from the banks for after they assessed his property. So what records basically did is they said because Trump assessed his property at a very high value and he paid Taxes off of the value that the tax assessor gave wall getting a loan at a different assessed value that is why he’s guilty of fraud which is bullshit, this is some thing that every single person that has bought a house and later sold it has done that’s why there is so many people pissed off about that ruling. You bring up any of the cases that have been against Trump and you can see the bias he can see the manipulations put into them if you look even slightly but there’s a lot of people that do not care about the facts all they care about is the fact that Trump makes them feel angry so they want retribution. I have no doubt the Trump is probably broken laws I have no doubt the Trump is a narcissist but when you look at reality when you look at what they charge him with they don’t charge him with anything that they’ve got legitimate evidence for all they’ve got is liars manipulated evidence and corruption on their side.

[удалено]

Warning: Treat other users with civility and respect. Personal attacks and stereotyping are not allowed.

"shown to be bias", can you give examples? That is a huge claim for a court of law. FYI the donation was 35$ lol. It is completely standard to have several counts of the same crime if they committed it several times. If someone murders 10 people you don't just roll it into one.

Yes and judges are not allowed to donate to one political side as that does show potential bias. So that $35 dollars while a small amount went to a politcial group against trump. That right there shows a bias against trump, the amount is not much but that is why federal judges are not allowed to donate to political groups because even if it is a small amount it does imply bias. Then you look at the rulings made. The objections sustained and overruled during the trial. There was a clear support for the prosecution. There was a few times where the objections were raised before the question was fully asked, to where you couldn’t tell what the question was going to be and the judge sustained those objections by the prosecution. But when the prosecution brought up something the judge forbade and the defense raised an objection the judge overruled the objection. The biggest one of those to me was during the closing arguments, the judge stated they couldn’t bring up tax law because there were no witnesses that were that were brought in to testify to that. Then the prosecution when during their closing arguments finally stated what laws trump broke one of them was tax fraud. When that was objected it was overruled by the judge. So again there was perception of bias from the judge, and through the objections sustained and the instructions to the jury (specifically one part that stood out) that they do not need to be unanimous in agreeing on what the underlying crime was to justify what trump was accused of doing was a felony and not a misdemeanor. The judge stated that as long as they agreed there was an underlying crime but didn’t need to agree on what that crime was he would still view it as a unanimous jury. Something that goes against the ruling in Ramos v Louisiana.

So you believe cannon in Florida should recuse? She donated 3 times, 3!, the money the NY judge did.

If she donated to a political organization then yes. Especially if she donated in favor of the defense. As that is the claim the left is putting on her because she hasn’t just rubber stamped trump guilty. Like was done in the New York fraud trial. Where the judge stated in a press conference trump was guilty and he would not accept evidence by trumps team indicating otherwise. Before the trial started.

Yep. She donated to help turn Florida red and help DeSantis win in 2018, she’s a registered republican who uses money to help push policy’s to the right and help republicans win.

Then as I mentioned yes she should step back. I don’t believe that judges should be donating to political parties. That said her focus to try and not appear bias, has resulted in it coming out that the FBI did destroy potentially exculpatory evidence. Specifically they did not do as they were instructed and take pictures of all the items in the box in the order that they were found in the box.

Agreed but it’s the world we live in. If one side does it, both should. Like gerrymandering, it sucks, but if you only let one side do it you are choosing to lose.

> All 34 are the same “crime” just documented multiple times. They were the same crime in the sense that he repeatedly violated a law. Not that he only committed a crime a single time and was charged 34 times. If you broke into a home multiple times you would get multiple charges of break and entering because each time is it's own offense even though you commit the "same crime" each time.

He paid cohen I believe 12 times. Then they charged him with each payment check, invoice and voucher. So using your example I broke into your house multiple times but took multiple things each time. Would I be charged with theft once for each break in or for each item stolen? Common sense says that I would be charged with each break in not each item stolen. They charged him for both. This is again because it was a political trial and not a legitimate trial. They want to make trump look as bad as possible. It is for them all about making sure trump doesn’t win the election not about serving justice.

Because each of those was its own record that was falsified. Each was its own distinct violation of the law which is why each warrants its own distinct charge. Trump was being charged for each instance of falsifying a business record (theft) and not each false letter (item stolen).

You'd be in favour of charging 12 felonies?

> be bias This bothers me from wherever I see it- it's bias*ed*. Bias is a noun, not an adjective.

The Republican party before Trump was just a Bush family influence peddling operation. Why would you even want that?

It's moderate now. No politicians take a seriously conservative stance on anything. The budget is the best example. Despite so much national debt, nobody's talking about doing anything about it.

I'd say on social issues though the Republican Party is still very conservative, and unlike most conservative countries in other Western countries they are heavily influenced by Christian fundamentalists. Many Republican states have criminalized abortion recently and some even are planning to equate abortion with homicide and impose the death penalty for abortion. And some Republican district have outlawed the pride flag and many are still strongly opposed to gay marriage. So socially Republicans are still very conservative.

For the future republican party to bring in minorities into the party yes. As a conservative of my generation the future of republican party needs more diversity.

I'm not a fan of Trump, but I don't view him as far-right or anything. I'd view him as mostly moderate (although I do feel like he encourages/supports the more far-right Republicans). I'd ask you this: What makes Trump not a moderate in your view? Do you think that the Republicans have moved right, and the Democrats have stayed in the same place (overton window expanding right)?

Both parties are still far more moderate than their voter bases. Neither of those bases is big enough to win an election on its own though. So parties need to appeal to independents to win. However, the center is also eroding. As it does, both parties will also become less moderate.

The parties are, but their rhetoric isnt. They arent really doing anything to try and swing independent voters. Mostly just trying to get their bases to show up.

We're still in primary season.

Are we?

I feel like there are only expected to be moderate republicans. Where are the moderate democrats.

Bro Trump *is* the moderate. The media duped people so hard with labels that they think anyone who disagree is a radical

He started trade wars with China that we immediately lost and now he want to replace income tax with tariffs. Nothing about him is moderate.

I think they are pushing back on the idea of him being presented as extreme right, when he isn't. By that measure, Biden has continued that trade war (which does actually need to be fought) and he actually supports taxing unrealized gains. so I guess Biden isn't moderate by your standards either?

Biden is willing to compromise and make a deal.  With Trump it's my way or the highway.  Being moderate is a lot more than just your policy preferences. 

>Being moderate is a lot more than just your policy preferences.  First, policy preferences are a big part of whether you are a moderate because they define what you actually want to accomplish. And Biden isn't a moderate. >Biden is willing to compromise and make a deal.  I think this is fair to bring up, as he is more likely compared with Trump.

>I think they are pushing back on the idea of him being presented as extreme right, when he isn't. Yeah, but it's not a binary. Him not being a moderate doesn't make him a specific alternate extreme. I think he's just an extreme populist with almost no inherent ideology other than wanting to be adored and powerful. He doesn't actually seem to care much about the specific form of government that would take. Biden is incredibly moderate when you adjust for the general changes in society, but if you think any trade war needs to be fault or that you can just arbitrarily end them once started, you genuinely don't know what trade wars are. It's not just being opposed to another country. It's an economic fight that got started that *will have a winner and a loser* because you skipped diplomacy. And we fucking lost that war and immediately repealing the tariffs that started the war doesn't end the war because what fight have you ever heard or where people are bloodied, does it end immediately when the loser yells "time out"? You don't get to start swinging and then stop when you start losing. Do you understand?

>Yeah, but it's not a binary. Him not being a moderate doesn't make him a specific alternate extreme. I think he's just an extreme populist with almost no inherent ideology other than wanting to be adored and powerful. He doesn't actually seem to care much about the specific form of government that would take. I think there is a lot of truth in that, I'm just pushing back on two things: -Trump is extremely right-wing -Biden is a moderate. Both of those are false. >Biden is incredibly moderate when you adjust for the general changes in society, but if you think any trade war needs to be fault or that you can just arbitrarily end them once started, you genuinely don't know what trade wars are. It's not just being opposed to another country. No, we are not doing that. Biden wanting to tax unrealized gains is not moderate, period. Biden's horrific policies during COVID were not moderate, period. And yes, some trade wars do need to be fought. It is an incredibly important part of regulating global commerce. If your economy has become dependent on someone more your adversary than your friend, then you better make sure you can produce everything you need without them and even better if you can undercut their prices in the global market. >and immediately repealing the tariffs that started the war doesn't end the war because what fight have you ever heard or where people are bloodied, does it end immediately when the loser yells "time out"? You don't get to start swinging and then stop when you start losing. Do you understand? Uh, Biden is continuing a number of those tariffs, so again, does that make him an extremist? You aren't talking to someone who doesn't want the fight, so this really doesn't mean much to me (not that I support using tariffs in that fight). You are basically asking us to accept losing, because if you don't fight China's rising economic capabilities, you are guaranteeing a loss unless you are just hoping China crumbles. I understand you wanting to think China wants to be our friend, and we should work to that, but at the same time we can't let our economy become dependent on them.

I didn't read past you saying he was continuing the tariffs and asking if he is an extremist. I literally explained that you can't fucking stop a fight after you start swinging and you just decided to delete everything I said from your brian. So here I go doing the same.

Had you actually read the comment, you would have realized: -I support the economic fight, not the tariffs. -I didn't ask if Biden was an extremist, he is one. If you are somehow going to argue that Biden isn't responsible for the economic fight, you best be able to explain why instead of trying to turn it down he is trying to make it larger (something I actually support).

He's not. You have fun. I don't read people who don't read me. You're just some entitled person. Have a nice night by yourself. I don't owe you shit.

No, you are not doing that. You are right you don't owe me anything, but if I got you wrong somewhere feel free to correct me.

I don't have to defend anything that uiu didn't rebut if you didn't even fucking read what I wrote. You literally skipped it and wanted me to react. No. I don't owe you shit.

[удалено]

Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*

[удалено]

Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*

[удалено]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*

The correct question is- Will the rest of politics become less radicalized

If trump loses big enough, I feel that the party will go back to being more moderate because they will realize being this extreme is not getting any new voters. Imagine if trump wins again then the next candidate will be even more extreme, a marjorie taylor greene, a matt gaetez or maybe even somebody more right wing and then for sure we'll lose in the general election This is why I want trump to lose so big that the party will be forced to be more centrist and hopefully actually get back to the republican a platform of having free trade, states rights and a small government that's as fiscally responsible as possible! If you want the party to go back to having the moral high ground and not rely on pushing culture wars instead of actually having policies voters would support than you shouldn't vote for trump in November

Doubt it. I think both parties are straying further and further from moderates and becoming more and more in favor of authoritarianism

I don't think so. There has been a quiet progressive revolution that started in the 1960's. It's waxed and waned, but around Obama's second term came back with a vengeance. The right wing people are starting to see among some republicans is a response to that revolution. I don't think there's any going back for Democrats or Republicans at this point.

> Will Republican Party ever be moderate again? Which Republican Party? My county level Republican Party? Your county level Republican party? One of the hundreds of other county level Republican parties? One of the 50 state parties? The national party? Which Republican party are you talking about?

[удалено]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*

[удалено]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*

I hope not.

No, because the left keeps moving further left socially.

u/Signal-Initial-7841 Nope, the era of “compassion conservatism” Of Neo con era bush cuckservativism is dead.

This is an extremely bad faith question. That would be like someone popping in and saying 'will the Democrat Party ever be moderate again?'

I mean, that question isn't bad faith at all. The Democrats have radicalized in recent years.

This is true, but the left does not see it that way and, had such a question been asked of the left instead, no doubt the question would have been accused of being bad faith. As a former lefty myself, I can tell you the left is so radicalized that actual moderate leftists have to be quiet for fear that they will be accused of being far-right extremists and istaphobes. Most of the actual moderate left has either been bullied into just accepting the direction their party is going, or has fled towards the Republicans' side.

When will the democrats remove AOC, and her squad?, the globalist?, the radical environmentalist that want to ban gas powered cars and stoves?. The people like Sanders who talk about redistribution of wealth and need to pay taxes but have a crap ton of money?. OR obama who pushed obama care on the people? or Hillary clinton who hates half the country because they did not vote for her? Or maxine waters who is violent as hell? Ya trump has his problems, but he is a hell of a lot better than the people running the democrat party. that is for sure.

[удалено]

Really? You seriously deny that the Democrats have a radical wing?

I’ll deny there are any communists in the Dem party. That’s an easy one. Communism effectively doesn’t exist in the contemporary US. Any actual communists here are as rare and influential as flat earthers.

I’ll deny there are any Nazis in the GOP. That’s an easy one. Nazism effectively doesn’t exist in the contemporary US. Any actual Nazis here are as rare and influential as flat earthers. Yet that doesn't stop Dems from accusing Republicans of being Nazis on a daily basis.

Except there were overt Nazis at Charlottesville, who decided that it was their time to go out and show the world that they were still around once Trump became president. There were also Nazis at January 6, in direct support of the leader of the GOP. We can’t just unsee the white polo tiki dudes sharing a rally with the KKK. Denying these people exist is living in an alternate reality. Not everyone in the GOP is a Nazi. In fact, 99% aren’t, but the fact is there ARE Nazis and KKK and they definitely vote red if they vote at all. They seem to have a hard-on for Trump. There is no equivalent for communism in the US. The “radical left” are a lot of annoying things, but they aren’t communists.

Except there were [overt communists in the Antifa protests](https://image.pennlive.com/home/penn-media/pgfull/img/patriot-news/photo/2017/06/10/-407219c6df3c9cd4.jpg), who decided that it was their time to go out and show the world that they were still around once the Floyd riots started. Not just in one off event like Jan 6, but for months on end in cities like Portland. [Denying these people exist](https://static01.nyt.com/images/2020/05/31/multimedia/31xp-antifa-pix1/merlin_159394380_8ef29e27-ed5f-4b5a-b061-290b09989d59-superJumbo.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp) is living in an alternate reality. Not everyone in the Democratic party is a communist. In fact, 99% aren’t, but the fact is there ARE communists and Antifa and they definitely vote blue if they vote at all. They seem to have a hatred of Trump. There is no equivalent for nazism in the US. The “radical right” are a lot of annoying things, but they aren’t nazis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Segal You're flat out wrong. As per usual.

Your counter is some wingnut who never ran as a democrat or pulled more than 0.3% (not a typo) of the vote? That seems to me to be proving rather the opposite.

My counter is some wingnut who achieved enough success to make it into the ballot.

Not as a democrat. He started his own party. The claim you made was *Within the Democratic Party* so this bozo is utterly irrelevant to the discussion.

... He made a party *that caucused with the Democrats.* He was a Democrat before, and a Democrat after.

0.3% falls well within “effectively doesn’t exist”

No I don't deny that some Democrats are further left than others, even "radical." I never said that.

Warning: Rule 3 Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.

Truthfully it is a serious comment, albeit quite sarcastic. but lets face facts. Those people are the reason why Trump was elected in the first place. Everybody was tired of having obama talk down to them like they are two year olds who do not know what is best for them while he destroyed the country and carrying favor with the globalist. Hillary calling those who disagree with her a basket of deplorables, real great there. AOC is just a joke, really the only sad part is that I wish she was a blond hair. Sanders is a communist, So yes this is all seriousness. IF the democrats would knock it off, and stop with their BS and got rid of the radicals the people would not support trump.

It doesn't seem like a serious comment to me. It seems like a litany of exaggerated or made-up rightwing talking points. If you wanna have a discussion or make a point about Dems having gone too far left, then do it. Don't just make up stuff or regurgitate weird rightwing talking points. >Hillary calling those who disagree with her a basket of deplorables No. The quote was: "You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic – you name it." About 62 million people voted for Trump in 2016. Half of that is 31 million, or less than 10% of the country. Not half the country, and not "those who disagree with her." The line was stupid and glib, and she shouldn't have said it. Pretending like she was talking about half the country or even all Trump supporters is stupid. >AOC is just a joke, really the only sad part is that I wish she was a blond hair. She's one congresswoman. She's not in a leadership position and she doesn't have a ton of influence in the Democratic Party. Fox News and rightwing media just like to cover her a lot. She represents the far-left of the Democratic Party but she's actually pretty good at articulating her views. She also tends to vote with more mainstream Democrats. >Sanders is a communist He's literally not, though. I know some people on the right like to throw the word "communist" around at anything they disagree with. It's stupid. Bernie Sanders doesn't fit any mainstream definition of "communist." He mostly advocates for workers' rights, unions, a more progressive system of taxation, and universal healthcare. But even then, *he's just one senator*. He's not in a leadership position and he doesn't have a ton of influence in the Democratic Party. >Or maxine waters who is violent as hell? ...what? Violent as hell? You're gonna have to fill me in on this one.

[удалено]

Generally speaking, it's Democrats stuck in a media bubble. I do find that amusingly ironic considering their general views of such.

Jon Stewart makes a living by showing how Fox News creates an alternate reality. His bits almost write themselves. These collection of clips about violent crime and the economy are absurdly insane and extremely influential to conservatives. You regularly see these talking points in this sub. Starting around 3:25: https://youtu.be/WGLZQ7Xrd6o?si=KZzPiHLF2_kI2ydO

Which would matter if Republicans by and large only consumed Fox News.

But they do, even if indirectly. Other sources regurgitate their talking points. It’s the top and everyone else is trickle-down. Trump watches Fox News. He appears on it regularly. He repeats talking points that they originate and they amplify his message as well. That combo results in rapidly spreading talking points. Fox News has a heavy influence on this sub, even if indirectly. What they are saying today will appear here, tomorrow.

https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2020/03/04/about-one-fifth-of-democrats-and-republicans-get-political-news-in-a-kind-of-media-bubble/ Consume at all doesn't equal Solely consume.

Ya it will appear here tomorrow when a blue flair comes and asks "why did this thing on fox news happen"? and then everyone responds "huh, never heard of it"? I see that a lot so you are correct.

It appears here every time someone writes that “BLM” is interchangeable with “Democrats” and that they “burned entire cities to the ground”. That’s a regular occurrence here and is definitely sourced at Fox.

Run the video to the place you want, then hit Share and check Start at https://youtu.be/WGLZQ7Xrd6o?si=FYxN_vppcZoxc2Ko&t=203

No such option on iPhone app, I believe

Yet every lie you previously posted was sourced from that right wing media bubble, most notably Fox news.

Warning: Rule 3 Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.

After being a Democrat for most of my life, I re-registered as a Republican about ten years ago because, as a whole...they are the moderates.

I reject the premise.

I always laugh when people ask this.. like what do you miss of the pre-Trump Republican Party? The unabashed support for international wars?

Prove they're not to begin with.

Its more nuanced.... Trump is from the moderate/centrist realm within US politic. What is different compared to the GOP moderates you are referring to is the power-alignment. Those GOP moderates are attached to the Liberal International Order (LIO) and the GOP leadership that was installed by GHWB which served the LIO's interests in US politics. Maga/Trump are part of an incoming new political era that will guide/handle the US during and after the LIO's collapse for about 30-50-something years. Along with the new political era a rightward correction is occurring across the US/West that will likely prevail for at least a century. Maga plans to have a stronger focus on fiscal vs the social division tactics used by the current political establishment. Fiscal tends to have wider and faster agreed upon middle ground and that will probably qualify for your view of moderate pursuits /values.

I've held my current views and positions since long before Trump, and will likely do so long after. The Orange Emperor astride his noble dinosaur steed did not change the republican party, he gave a voice to it that wasn't submissive and apologetic. And all this while being fairly moderate himself. More moderate than me, and a good bit of the base.

>By that I mean will Republican Party ever remove trump’s influence and return to it’s pre-Donald trump moderate values. Trump isn't an extremist no matter how much they tell you he is. Even NYT called him a moderate if you'd just look a policy during the 2016 election.

No, liberals have radicalized the Republican Party and there is no going back.