Democrats are More Extreme than Republicans

[evensaul]

The Left often accuses Republicans of extremism, but available evidence suggests that, on the whole, it is Democrats who are becoming more and more extreme, causing a widening gap in political ideology between Left and Right.

Think about any recent illegal demonstrations, unlawful or uncivil protests, and it was likely a group of activists from the Left.

On the issue of legal immigration, Democrats don't have any proposal to solve problems. They just want to maintain the unsecured nature of our southern border, abolish ICE and close detention facilities, without offering any plan to resolve illegal immigration problems. https://www.yahoo.com/news/abolish-i...-election.html This is very different than Democrats of the past.

The Democrats recently had a Socialist presidential candidate who very nearly won that party's nomination. And they are in the process of sending another Socialist to the US Congress: https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/26/polit...ary/index.html

A Pew Research study found that Democrats were much more likely to say that finding out a friend voted for Trump would strain the relationship than if the positions were reversed and the friend voted for Hillary Clinton. http://www.people-press.org/2017/07/...y-among-women/

And finally, a Pew Research study has found that the growing divide between liberals and conservatives is due, in large part, to liberals moving further and further left on key issues: http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-con...pe-release.pdf

[mican333]

Obviously one cannot accurately asses which side is more extremist by just, as you have done, cherry pick a few examples that exclusively back up ONLY ONE SIDE of the equation and not even bother to look into the other side at all.

So let me do a bit of cherry picking for the other side.

We have an open white supremacist running on the Republican ticket in North Carolina

"Russell Walker, the Republican nominee running for state House District 48, loves the confederate flag, refers to Martin Luther King as “Martin Luther Coon,” and believes that God is a white supremacist."

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progres...me-from-satan/

And from another article, a few tidbits:

"One of the president's senior advisers, Steve Bannon, has reportedly endorsed a book about race war—beloved in the neo-Nazi community—which refers to black individuals as "n******" and "rats." Bannon openly supports white nationalist goals such as reducing the number of Asian American CEOs and was heavily involved in creating the career of white nationalist and Nazi fetishist Milo Yiannopoulos.

Trump's son, who was a key part of his campaign, repeatedly conducted campaign outreach to open, unapologetic white supremacists. The president himself conducted an exclusive campaign Q&A with a notorious internet forum rife with white supremacist hate speech.

Congressman Steve King, who has repeatedly endorsed white-supremacist talking points and praised European white nationalist parties, was once considered a nuisance by party leaders but has been embraced and promoted by Trump.

The Trump administration reportedly recently hired a woman whose most recent job was running an anti-immigration group that was founded by a white supremacist and has long-standing connections to the sewer world of race science.

Eyewitnesses from Fox News, of all places, say the newest Republican congressman—Montana's Greg Gianforte—body-slammed and punched a reporter who had approached him to ask a question about the American Health Care Act on Wednesday night. Gianforte was almost immediately charged with assault by a local sheriff who had donated to his campaign. Then, on Thursday, he was elected to Congress, where other Republicans appear ready to welcome him with, at most, the suggestion that he "apologize" for engaging in the spontaneous beating of someone who was trying to ask him a question about public policy."

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...it_racism.html

And I fully admit that I cherry-picked a handful of items and what I presented does not really give a complete picture of how extreme the Republicans are compared to the Democrats.

The fact is in order to really determine who is more extreme, one cannot just cherry pick a handful of items for either side. One would have to do a full analysis of what is going on with each side and likewise be able to rate how significant each item is in regards to extremism and how much it really represents the party as a whole and a bunch of other factors that I've not forwarded.

For me to say that what I've presented show that Republicans are indeed more extremist than Democrats really just relies on sheer political bias instead of an attempt to accurately assess the relative extremis in either party. And the same can be said of the OP.

The OP does not weigh all of the individual instances of BOTH SIDES with any kind of credible analysis but instead just presents a few items that supports only one side of the argument and relies on sheer political bias to say that one side is worse.

So the OP fails to make a credible case that either side is worse for that reason.

[evensaul]

Those are all really weak. None of them compare to the Pew Research studies I referenced.

"Russell Walker, the Republican nominee running for state House District 48, loves the confederate flag, refers to Martin Luther King as “Martin Luther Coon,” and believes that God is a white supremacist."

First of all, a state house district is really tiny, representing a small fraction of the people represented by the US House district where Democrats are about to elect a Socialist. And the state republican party has withdrawn support for Walker once they found out about his views. Have Dems done the same with the Socialist who will be a leading figure of the Left in Congress. Nope.

And the rest are all pretty weak, in that they are individual people not really representative of Republicans as a whole. I'm sure there are plenty of individuals on the Left that mirror what you've posted.

Do you have any actual independent studies that will compare to the Pew Research reports I linked to?

Do you have any reports of Republican mobs blocking freeways, rioting, looting, burning police cars and buildings? Anything at all similar to what the Left does?

The fact is in order to really determine who is more extreme, one cannot just cherry pick a handful of items for either side. One would have to do a full analysis of what is going on with each side and likewise be able to rate how significant each item is in regards to extremism and how much it really represents the party as a whole and a bunch of other factors that I've not forwarded.

I think the Pew Research reports are a pretty good analysis on their own at showing that Democrats are more extreme than Republicans. But you and I, and anyone else who wants to participate, can work together to provide a more complete analysis, including rating how significant each item is.

Right now I put the Pew data at the top of the list in terms of significance, followed by rioting and other illegal demonstrations by the Left. Third would be the Dem stance on an open border and abolishing ICE, followed by the Dems electing a Socialist to the US House of Representatives. Everything else on both sides follow.

Let's see what else we can find in recent news reports and in current events as time goes by.

[mican333]

Those are all really weak. None of them compare to the Pew Research studies I referenced.

First of all, a state house district is really tiny, representing a small fraction of the people represented by the US House district where Democrats are about to elect a Socialist.

A Democratic socialist, similar to Bernie Sanders (who's also a Democratic Socialist) and IMO while democratic socialism is further left than typical Democratic platforms, it's hardly extreme. Publicly funded police and fire qualify as democratic socialism. Universal Healthcare, which every other Western Country practices, is likewise DS.

And the state republican party has withdrawn support for Walker once they found out about his views.

So they didn't known his views BEFORE he won the primary?

Have Dems done the same with the Socialist who will be a leading figure of the Left in Congress. Nope.

Nor should they. And if you think Democratic socialism is as bad as white supremacy, I'd say you are a poor judge of what is unacceptably extremist. And my point is not so much to say anything about you personally but that it's obvious that you are judging which is worse based on a political bias (which is not to say that I am not doing likewise). So this thread has absolutely no standard for what is extreme and how extreme something is and therefore there is no real valid criteria for determining which side is more extreme which is why the OP fails. Using your own biased views as the judge os what's significant or not doesn't really tell us much about which side is really more extreme.

And the rest are all pretty weak, in that they are individual people not really representative of Republicans as a whole. I'm sure there are plenty of individuals on the Left that mirror what you've posted.

Except that all of those examples I provided either hold Republican office (which means that the constituents do to some level consent to their views) or are Presidential appointees and therefore reflect on the Republican president, which is very significant. I'd say the man the Republican elected President who still has a high approval rating amongst his base s a very good indicator of where the Republican base is at. And since there was never much of a controversy over who he chose for his cabinet, likewise that is a reflection on his base as well.

Do you have any actual independent studies that will compare to the Pew Research reports I linked to?

No, but I don't think the Pew Research report is that significant. Trump, IMO, is a particularly odious individual compared to even all of the other Republican Presidents in resent history. He, again IMO, has shown himself to be incompetent, ignorant, and a compulsive liar (I agree that all politicians, even Obama, lie from time to time, but Trump lies constantly). He as attacked the FBI, the press, the courts when he doesn't like their rulings. He admitted to firing Comey in order to quash the Russia investigation. I could say other things but my point is not to pile on Trump. My point is that in my OPINION it's perfectly reasonable for people to have a stronger reaction to a Trump supporter than they do supporters of other political figures, like Clinton. It's also likely that when comparing the views of two candidates, having a stronger reaction to the winner is more likely since we experience the consequences of the winner than we do the loser. It's easier to complain about the winner's policies since we are actually experiencing them.

And to be clear, I am just stating my opinion on the matter and do not forward my position as something supportable nor something that needs to be debated. The point is how significant the pew poll is or isn't seems to heavily influenced by political bias. As is pretty much everything that you and I can forward in a debate over which side is more extreme.

So if this debate is never going to rise above opinion, then you will never support that Democrats are more extreme.

But you and I, and anyone else who wants to participate, can work together to provide a more complete analysis, including rating how significant each item is.

But I'm not actually arguing that the Republicans are more extreme (I think they are but I will acknowledge that I am biased and have not come up with a good way to analyze the various things that could make an unbiased case) so I am not seeking to support that Republicans are indeed more biased. So the burden to show that one side is more biased on the other is solely your burden if you are going to maintain your claim that Democrats are indeed more extreme.

Right now I put the Pew data at the top of the list in terms of significance, followed by rioting and other illegal demonstrations by the Left. Third would be the Dem stance on an open border and abolishing ICE, followed by the Dems electing a Socialist to the US House of Representatives. Everything else on both sides follow.

But if you are arguing that Democrats are more extreme than Republicans, you can't just argue as if there is nothing on the Republican side (which you are doing when you don't even bother to list alleged Republican extremist acts for comparison to the things you listed).

And if you are forwarding these Democratic things as particularly extreme, do you have a baseline for when something is extreme that is free from your own political bias? IF not, then your arguments are tainted by a very biased and subjective viewpoint. From my viewpoint, most of these things aren't particularly extreme (such as a democratic socialist winning a primary) or a misrepresentation of Democratic viewpoint (has a single Democratic politician actually said "I want open borders" or directly advocated that as a platform?).

And I would say, again, from a biased point of view, that the Republican acceptance of separating families of those who are seeking asylum outweighs all of those issues combined.

Now, if you are going to say "In my opinion, Democrats are more extreme than Repubicans" then I say "Fair enough. Your opinion is noted". In other words, you are welcome to have your subjective views on the matter. On the other hand if you are going to argue that it's a FACT (objective) that Democrats are more extreme, then there does need to be a criteria that is either objective or agreed-upon to measure how extreme an incident is.

Because at this point, it does seem like "Your opinion is noted" is all one can really say to the OP and therefore it is not supported.

[evensaul]

A Democratic socialist, similar to Bernie Sanders (who's also a Democratic Socialist) and IMO while democratic socialism is further left than typical Democratic platforms, it's hardly extreme. Publicly funded police and fire qualify as democratic socialism. Universal Healthcare, which every other Western Country practices, is likewise DS.

I'm going to focus on this for a moment.

Bernie Sanders, a socialist, received 13,206,428 votes. Democrats gave the socialist candidate 43% of their votes during the 2016 primary, which was an unprecedented result for the Dems, and shows that the party, as a group, is moving further to the left. Twenty or even ten years ago, Democrats pretty much ran away from the word "socialist" because it scared off moderates. Now, many dems embrace the socialist candidate and almost made him the party's presidential nominee. And his positions, especially universal healthcare, are a move to the left from where the Democratic party has been in the past. That supports my op, which says "available evidence suggests that, on the whole, it is Democrats who are becoming more and more extreme, causing a widening gap in political ideology between Left and Right."

Can you rebut this specific point of support for the op? I don't think so, because you've conceded that democratic socialism is further left than typical Democratic platforms. And that means 13 million democrats, with voting for Sanders as evidence, have moved the party further to the left, widening the political gulf between Democrats and Republicans.

---------- Post added at 08:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:16 AM ----------

Here's a news item showing that support for universal healthcare is growing among Democrats - evidence that they are moving further left:

Single-payer health care is gaining ground among Democrats. In a sign of the party’s move to the left on the issue, the Center for American Progress (CAP), a bastion of the Democratic establishment, this week released a plan that comes very close to a single-payer system. That’s a dramatic change from just two years ago, when Hillary Clinton — tied closely to CAP — dismissed Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I-Vt.) push of “Medicare for all” as politically unrealistic... http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare...er-health-care

Recent Democratic primaries also show the party is moving to the left, besides the rising socialist darling of the party in NY. Other examples are from Pennsylvania:

In four state House races in Pennsylvania, candidates backed by the Democratic Socialists of America won primaries. Arielle Cohen, co-chair of Pittsburgh DSA, told the Huffington Post those results represent a “monumental shift.” “We won on popular demands that were deemed impossible. We won on health care for all; we won on free education,” Cohen said. “We're turning the state the right shade of red tonight.” https://newsok.com/article/5594992/d...er-to-the-left

[mican333]

I'm going to focus on this for a moment.

Bernie Sanders, a socialist, received 13,206,428 votes. Democrats gave the socialist candidate 43% of their votes during the 2016 primary, which was an unprecedented result for the Dems, and shows that the party, as a group, is moving further to the left. Twenty or even ten years ago, Democrats pretty much ran away from the word "socialist" because it scared off moderates. Now, many dems embrace the socialist candidate and almost made him the party's presidential nominee. And his positions, especially universal healthcare, are a move to the left from where the Democratic party has been in the past. That supports my op, which says "available evidence suggests that, on the whole, it is Democrats who are becoming more and more extreme, causing a widening gap in political ideology between Left and Right."

Can you rebut this specific point of support for the op? I don't think so, because you've conceded that democratic socialism is further left than typical Democratic platforms. And that means 13 million democrats, with voting for Sanders as evidence, have moved the party further to the left, widening the political gulf between Democrats and Republicans.

I don't challenge the notion that a portion of the Democratic party has moved more to the left (although I would challenge that Bernie Sanders-style Democratic Socialism qualifies as "extreme" as it is practiced in most Western nations).

What I challenge is the notion that Democrats are more extreme than Republicans.

To say that one party is more extreme than the other is to make a comparative statement so just saying that Democrats have move in a more leftist position than they used to does not support that Democrats have more further towards extremism than Republicans because you have not addressed whether the shift in the Republican position is lesser or greater than the Democrats.

It's like saying Joe has more money than Frank because Joe has a million dollars. That position fails because you didn't specify whether Frank has more than million or less than a million. Likewise just cherry-picking ONE example for one ONE side of an equation does not support your stated assessment of how the equation pans out.

[evensaul]

It appears to me that you have just conceded the op - that Dems are moving left and widening the gulf between left and right, with "I don't challenge the notion that a portion of the Democratic party has moved more to the left." Now, you're just arguing against the thread's headline. And that's fine.

Dems are pushing an agenda farther and farther to the left of the American political center, stretching the end of the rubber band leftward past all previous lengths. They are extreme, and getting more so. Deny it if you want, but my op is supported, and I'll be providing more proof in this thread as time goes by.

[mican333]

It appears to me that you have just conceded the op - that Dems are moving left and widening the gulf between left and right, with "I don't challenge the notion that a portion of the Democratic party has moved more to the left." Now, you're just arguing against the thread's headline. And that's fine.

There's also the opening sentence of the OP.

"The Left often accuses Republicans of extremism, but available evidence suggests that, on the whole, it is Democrats who are becoming more and more extreme, causing a widening gap in political ideology between Left and Right."

This sentence indicates that it's the left, not the right, who are becoming more extreme.

So please make it clear.

Do you take the position that the Democrats are becoming more extreme that the Republicans? If so, will you be supporting this position or is it just being offered as an opinion?

Dems are pushing an agenda farther and farther to the left of the American political center, stretching the end of the rubber band leftward past all previous lengths. They are extreme, and getting more so. Deny it if you want, but my op is supported, and I'll be providing more proof in this thread as time goes by.

You have not supported that they are extreme because you have not shown a line where a party has crossed the line into extremism. IMO Democratic Socialism is not extreme as it is practiced by most Western Nations (and it's practiced to a lesser extent in this country with no controversy - police and firemen). So while a move towards Democratic Socialism is a step left-ward, I disagree that it's a step towards extremism. I'm guessing your barometer of what is extreme will be based on little else than personal opinion and political bias. But feel free to prove me wrong on this point and present a reasonable, unbiased standard, of extremism.

[evensaul]

Now you're just back to your usual nit picking, this time over semantics. Far left = extreme left = extreme, in common usage. They're just different labels with the same meaning. If someone uses "Far right" I would understand that to mean "extreme right" meaning those who are at the extreme on the conservative end of the spectrum. Pick those nits if that's what turns you on, Mican, but I'm going to ignore it from here out.

So when I say that Dems are becoming more extreme, it is the same as saying they are moving farther left. No difference.

As to whether Republicans have moved, they have been relatively stationary, but have moved to the left on some issues. The Pew Research data linked to at the end of the op supports that summation. If you have evidence to the contrary, please do post it.

Oh, and my op is regarding American politics. Your repeated references to Europe are red herrings. Please desist.

[mican333]

Now you're just back to your usual nit picking, this time over semantics. Far left = extreme left = extreme, in common usage.

This looks like a complete strawman. I don't even see me referring to "far" in some manner. So I'm just going to repost my last bit and hope for a relevant rebuttal this time.

I didn't nit pick between "far" and "extreme". Either way, a line needs to be established when a group, left or right, has reach "far/extreme". So just claiming that any left-ward shift is "extreme/far" does not make it so.

There's also the opening sentence of the OP.

"The Left often accuses Republicans of extremism, but available evidence suggests that, on the whole, it is Democrats who are becoming more and more extreme, causing a widening gap in political ideology between Left and Right."

This sentence indicates that it's the left, not the right, who are becoming more extreme.

So please make it clear.

Do you take the position that the Democrats are becoming more extreme that the Republicans? If so, will you be supporting this position or is it just being offered as an opinion?

As to whether Republicans have moved, they have been relatively stationary, but have moved to the left on some issues. The Pew Research data linked to at the end of the op supports that summation. If you have evidence to the contrary, please do post it.

Sure. I have evidence.

White Supremacists (who are undeniably extremist) marched in Charlotte. Any prior Republican president would surely have singled them out for criticism and stating that they are antithesis of American values. Trump criticized the Supremacists and the counter-protesters equally and even gave them equal compliments ("very fine people on both sides") so he essentially refused to criticize the very content of the white supremacists. Also, the policy of separating famlies seeking asylum is a very strong shift to the right and is a violation of international law. And as I forwarded already.

Oh, and my op is regarding American politics. Your repeated references to Europe are red herrings. Please desist.

Um, no. Because they aren't red herrings. Obviously when something is "extreme", it falls outside of established norms soone can forward international norms when making the case that somethi8ng is or is not extremist

Universal Health care is almost ubiquitous in Western Culture so it's not extreme to recommend that a society that does not have it, should have it. Arguably, what's extreme is being opposed to Universal Health Care.

[evensaul]

Mican, there is an "Add to ignore list" on profiles. I can't do that with you, because you're a mod. But I can choose to stop wasting my time responding to your petty arguments. Lately you're the only liberal posting, so I was trying to make it work. But it just isn't worth the effort any more. Consider yourself as being on my ignore list for this thread.

---------- Post added at 10:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:34 AM ----------

Top Democrat Presidential Prospects Move Farther Left

The Democratic Party’s left wing is stronger today than at any time since the “silent majority” loudly rejected George McGovern. Team Blue’s top presidential prospects have pledged their allegiance to socialized medicine, free public college, universal child care and paid family leave, while the party’s Establishment think-tank has gone so far as to propose a federal job guarantee... http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...t-looking.html

Just more evidence that the Dems are responsible for the growing divide between Left and Right.

[mican333]

Mican, there is an "Add to ignore list" on profiles. I can't do that with you, because you're a mod. But I can choose to stop wasting my time responding to your petty arguments.

You don't need to share your excuses with me.

Lately you're the only liberal posting, so I was trying to make it work. But it just isn't worth the effort any more. Consider yourself as being on my ignore list for this thread.

You are free to not respond to my posts but I am still free to post here and show that your arguments are incorrect.

The fact is you have established no valid criteria for extremism and therefore have not come close to making a case that Democrats are extreme or even heading towards extremism but one can argue that the leftward shift in Democrats is moving AWAY from extremism.

It's certainly not established that any move away from the status quo is a move towards extremism. For example for a while in Germany, the status quo was indeed extremist, when the Nazis ran things. And then there was a left-ward shift and that was indeed a shift away from extremism. And for an example on the other side of the political spectrum, China has moved away from communism towards capitalism which would be a shift from extreme leftism.

So whether a left-ward shift is a shift towards extremism is dependent on whether it will make things more extreme or less extreme. And IMO, the US being the only Western country to not have Universal Health Care makes us relatively extreme (in that particular instance) and therefore a shift towards Democratic Socialism (in respect to attaining UHC) would make us less extreme and therefore to some extent the shift leftward is a shift away from extremism, not towards it.

And of course, my argument above is based on a whole lot of subjectivity on my part but then I see no difference in your argument. It seems that what is extreme or not in your view is just based on whatever you happen to think.

So beyond stating your biased opinion on the left, you are not really showing any move towards extremism on the left.

[evensaul]

Democrats are moving farther left on immigration.

Calls to eliminate the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, for years relegated to the far-left corners of progressive activism, have been thrust this week into the mainstream of Democratic politics.
Cracks in the dam became visible 10 days ago, when a group of demonstrators confronted Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen at a Mexican restaurant in Washington. They called for an end to the Trump administration policy that resulted in separating migrant families at the border and, as the viral protest heated up, began to chant: "Abolish ICE!"
Less than two weeks on, the demand -- a favored meme on the left -- has gone from a progressive fringe cause, mostly ignored even by some of the most liberal lawmakers, to a political message being embraced by a growing roster of influential national Democrats. https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/30/polit...ats/index.html

In this political climate mainstream Democrats are going to find it increasingly difficult to defend the aggressive enforcement of immigration laws against poor people of color. A new litmus test could be forming. “Abolishing ICE is of a piece with what the open-borders Left has always wanted: an end to any idea of immigration enforcement,” said Christopher Hajec, director of litigation at the Immigration Reform Law Institute. “What’s new is that candidates are so explicit about that agenda. Whether they’re motivated by unhinged hatred of Trump or something else, their worldview is on a collision course with that of the American people.” https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...on-immigration

[CowboyX]

Democrats are moving farther left on immigration.

Calls to eliminate the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, for years relegated to the far-left corners of progressive activism, have been thrust this week into the mainstream of Democratic politics.
Cracks in the dam became visible 10 days ago, when a group of demonstrators confronted Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen at a Mexican restaurant in Washington. They called for an end to the Trump administration policy that resulted in separating migrant families at the border and, as the viral protest heated up, began to chant: "Abolish ICE!"
Less than two weeks on, the demand -- a favored meme on the left -- has gone from a progressive fringe cause, mostly ignored even by some of the most liberal lawmakers, to a political message being embraced by a growing roster of influential national Democrats. https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/30/polit...ats/index.html

In this political climate mainstream Democrats are going to find it increasingly difficult to defend the aggressive enforcement of immigration laws against poor people of color. A new litmus test could be forming. “Abolishing ICE is of a piece with what the open-borders Left has always wanted: an end to any idea of immigration enforcement,” said Christopher Hajec, director of litigation at the Immigration Reform Law Institute. “What’s new is that candidates are so explicit about that agenda. Whether they’re motivated by unhinged hatred of Trump or something else, their worldview is on a collision course with that of the American people.” https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...on-immigration

How is that not just a reaction to the increased rhetoric and enforcement blunders from the right that is in full control of the government? Racist tirades from the president and threats against sanctuary states and cities whose concern is how their local law enforcement is used.

Seems that local control is a good slogan for the right except in that case where centralized control from the feds in Washington is better. Hmm, that might be one for he republican hypocrisies thread.

[Dionysus]

The Left often accuses Republicans of extremism, but available evidence suggests that, on the whole, it is Democrats who are becoming more and more extreme, causing a widening gap in political ideology between Left and Right.

Think about any recent illegal demonstrations, unlawful or uncivil protests, and it was likely a group of activists from the Left.

On the issue of legal immigration, Democrats don't have any proposal to solve problems. They just want to maintain the unsecured nature of our southern border, abolish ICE and close detention facilities, without offering any plan to resolve illegal immigration problems. https://www.yahoo.com/news/abolish-i...-election.html This is very different than Democrats of the past.

The Democrats recently had a Socialist presidential candidate who very nearly won that party's nomination. And they are in the process of sending another Socialist to the US Congress: https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/26/polit...ary/index.html

A Pew Research study found that Democrats were much more likely to say that finding out a friend voted for Trump would strain the relationship than if the positions were reversed and the friend voted for Hillary Clinton.http://www.people-press.org/2017/07/...y-among-women/

And finally, a Pew Research study has found that the growing divide between liberals and conservatives is due, in large part, to liberals moving further and further left on key issues: http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-con...pe-release.pdf

How are you defining "extreme" here? It's a little like saying that "Ozzy rules!" Ozzy rules what?

Here's what your criterion appears to be:

• The Left's activism
• Their lack of providing proposals to solve certain issues, such as immigration
• Their capacity to promote extremists
• Their inability to sustain unity with people with whom the disagree
• Their tendency to rally around leftist issues when the other party is in office

Let's look at this line-by-line.

The Left's activism

The Left loves to protest. I can't really cite anything to weigh the size or "extremeness" of their protests as compared to their right counterparts, but I think it's indisputable that the left will make noise when they don't like something. But maybe there is a kind of activism we can weigh.

Voting is probably the most accessible means of activism. In 2016, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 2.8 million -that's more people than the respective populations of the bottom 87 countries in the world, and that's only 51 more countries than there were Congressional delegation electors casting the deciding electoral votes. So clearly the left was far more "extreme" in the 2016 election than was the right.

Their lack of providing proposals to solve certain issues, such as immigration

I'm not sure what the claim is, here. Is the claim "extreme" legislative inaction? If that's the case, Democrats did pass the Dream Act, whereas the GOP has done nothing but focus all their energy on sh!tting on it, while at the same time controlling two of the three branches of government and still failing to pass any kind of immigration law, and meanwhile completely inventing the idea that they're being forced by law to separate kids from their parents. So I'm not sure the left is more "extreme" via legislative inaction than the right. So maybe the is more "extreme" in terms of action, but not inaction.

Their capacity to promote extremists

Trump is a big fan of suspected child molesters (The Moral Majority! Woohoo!). The GOP nominated Trump even after he bragged about "being able to get away with" strolling into the Miss Universe dressing rooms unannounced and gawking at their half-naked bodies (Christian Values! Amen!). Currently an openly white-supremacist, anti-semite, Holocaust denier is the congressional GOP nominee for the Illinois 3rd Congressional District (Extreme! Yeah!)

Their inability to sustain unity with people with whom the disagree

This one is really hard to quantify, but let's just take it at face value. It does beg the question though: If Hillary had won the election, how would Republicans answer the question: "If you found out your friend voted for Hillary, would it strain your relationship?"

Hmmm... I guess some things are just imponderable.

Their tendency to rally around leftist issues when the other party is in office

Well, it's true that political tribalists tend to rally around their own values when the other party is in office. For example, look at this study from Pew Research during the Obama era: http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/...erican-public/

I don't know that if the study you cited supports the idea that America's political polarization is a consequence of the left become more left, but if it does, then this one shows that the right became more right (not to be confused with "correct") under Obama. If anything, it just shows that we're a terribly polarized nation.

It's a good thing we have venues like this one to talk about it, though. These kinds of claims/discussions will almost certainly make it all better.

[evensaul]

Thank you for joining the debate.

Well, it's true that political tribalists tend to rally around their own values when the other party is in office. For example, look at this study from Pew Research during the Obama era: http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/...erican-public/

From your same study, look at the interactive feature on this page, and note that the median line for Democrats from 1994 to 2014 moved waay left, while the Republican median moved slightly right. http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/...y/#interactive

The same study explains that Republicans moved a step left on social issues (homosexuality and immigration), and right on government and economic issues. Meanwhile, moderate Dems have moved left and created more consistency in the party across all issues. The recently increasing gulf on immigration and other social issues is a result of Dems sprinting leftward, even though Republicans have walked in the same direction.

The rest of your argument seems pointing out single individuals, rather that the parties as a whole. I could do the same, showing how individual Dems are to the left of Marx, but I wouldn't consider any single person to be representative of the party as a whole.

These kinds of claims/discussions will almost certainly make it all better.

Sure, just like most every other debate here, because ODN is all about smoothing out our differences.

[Dionysus]

The same study explains that Republicans moved a step left on social issues (homosexuality and immigration), and right on government and economic issues. Meanwhile, moderate Dems have moved left and created more consistency in the party across all issues. The recently increasing gulf on immigration and other social issues is a result of Dems sprinting leftward, even though Republicans have walked in the same direction.

Right, I understand that your central claim is that the left always sprints like crazy people to left where the kind and benevolent right always drifts left out of the graciousness of their pure and giving hearts, but that's not what the data says. However, I'll definitely grant you that today's noisiest left is positively ridiculous with their unhelpful pronoun bull$#!+, infringements on free speech on conservative speakers at college campuses, complete disregard for border security, their refusal to acknowledge the relationship between radical Islamic beliefs and the capacity for terrorist violence, etc. But are you capable of admitting anything of substance like that on the part of the right?

I await your answer with baited breath.

But back to the study, I agree that the it shows the left moving generally more to the left, and the right drifting left at two points, but between 2004 and 2011 there's a huge rebound to the right from the right that more than overtakes any move to the left they'd made. So it's simply not true to suggest that the right have given oh-so-much with in fact, on the aggregate, they've regressed to a position that's further right than they were 23 years ago. However, I WILL grant that the left has moved MORE from the center than has the right. I don't know that I'd call it "extreme", but I will grant that it's more to the left from the left than to the right from the right.

The rest of your argument seems pointing out single individuals, rather that the parties as a whole.

Fair enough, but the GOP still elected Trump, and Trump still says, does, and represents things that would make Reagan spin in his grave - I believe you and I are roughly the same age and that we grew up in the same state, both as young Christians in the Reagan era, so I know you know this as well as I do.

Sure, just like most every other debate here, because ODN is all about smoothing out our differences.

Thou misseth the point. The point is that continuing to paint the issues in terms of left or right, where the right is always just and good and the left is corrupt and evil doesn't help anything. It's exactly why I barely do this sh!t anymore. I mean, look, I'm a left-leaning centrist who works for a huge oil company with two letters in its name who represents pretty much every wicked thing the far-left thinks is wrong with the world. I work with nothing but Trump voters. It's pretty much the equivalent of you volunteering at Planned Parenthood.

But nonetheless, I can have good, interesting, and productive discussions with people about issues like this precisely because it's simply not useful to view this stuff in black and white. That you still insist on such a polarized view after all these just years blows my mind. Are you actually interested in being persuaded at all? Honest question. I mean, when's the last time you started a thread challenging a generally conservative belief? When's the last time ANY conservative on this site has done that?

[evensaul]

Jumping straight to this, for now.

That you still insist on such a polarized view after all these just years blows my mind.

I'm not insisting on a polarized view, Dio. While I have my beliefs, and they are generally very conservative, I don't insist on believing them and arguing them to be polarizing. They are simply what I believe. I'm not going to pretend to have different beliefs just to get along. If that earns me a report card saying "Does not play well with others", then so be it.

Are you actually interested in being persuaded at all? Honest question.

Certainly. It just doesn't happen very often. Honest answer.

I mean, when's the last time you started a thread challenging a generally conservative belief?

Well, a couple weeks ago I started a thread asking if the classes protected from discrimination should be expanded, reduced or maintained. My goal was to find the cut-off between sensible protections and the absurd. Mican and Isbeld assumed I was being disingenuous, and would eventually argue that all anti-discrimination laws should be abolished. Not true, as I explained to Isbeld in a subsequent post. I believe there is a need for many of the protected classes, and I really wanted to debate what does and does not make sense. I would still like to continue that debate with someone who is willing to take the question seriously and not just automatically be an obstructionist. Jump in if you like.

Another thread that comes to mind is one I started about returning flood prone areas to nature, rather than allowing continued building of homes and businesses. Is that a conservative position? I don't think so. There may be more threads that don't come readily to mind. The point is that I'm usually debating topics for which I have an interest, and I'm going to be honest about my position. Should I be doing something else? I don't get your complaint, really (other than understanding that you're tired of the perpetual antagonism). Have you urged liberals to start threads from a conservative point of view, and I missed it?

The bottom line is that I follow politics and the news. A lot. So that's what I think about and what I debate. And politics in America is polarized, so the debates I'm in are likely to be a reflection of that polarization. I'm open to having my mind changed by effective argumentation, facts and good logic, but I don't see that from the Left very often, especially as represented here on ODN. Again, honest answer.

---------- Post added at 02:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:34 PM ----------

And to the rest, and setting aside your sarcasm...

I don't believe I argued the things you say I argued. I haven't argued that Republicans haven't moved right, and in fact volunteered that they have moved right on government and economic issues. In sum, they have moved slightly to the right since 1994. But the total range of movement to the right is far less than Dems have moved to the left. And, seriously, are government and economics really hot button areas that cause serious friction between the two sides? I don't think so. The areas where Republicans get called "extreme" by Democrats are mostly on social issues, right? And that is where Republican's have actually moved left. The Dems ever-leftward drive is what continues causing a huge divide, year after year, hot issue after hot issue. So I think my op isn't just stirring up an argument for the sake of being polarizing, but is solid in pointing out that Dems are absolutely lying on that issue of who is being extreme, because they are the ones moving to the extreme left and causing polarization. Honestly, that is what I believe, and I've not seen anything to prove me wrong.

Regarding Trump, I don't like his personality or the way he talks about issues and people. But so far, I support every major policy step he's taken. If you want to debate any of them, please do start a new thread.

[Dionysus]

Jumping straight to this, for now.

I'm not insisting on a polarized view, Dio. While I have my beliefs, and they are generally very conservative, I don't insist on believing them and arguing them to be polarizing. They are simply what I believe. I'm not going to pretend to have different beliefs just to get along. If that earns me a report card saying "Does not play well with others", then so be it.

Fair enough. Of course, I'm not asking you to pretend anything. I'm just wondering what you want to get out of it except the whole "Get off my lawn!" cane-shaking sensation. If that's it, I get it. It can be cathartic to get stuff off your chest. No sarcasm implied or intended.

Well, a couple weeks ago I started a thread asking if the classes protected from discrimination should be expanded, reduced or maintained. My goal was to find the cut-off between sensible protections and the absurd. Mican and Isbeld assumed I was being disingenuous, and would eventually argue that all anti-discrimination laws should be abolished.

FACT: If nothing had happened in the last few years with regards to protected classed in the Obama era, the thread you're talking about would not exist. Surely you won't deny this. So it WAS disingenuous insofar that, ultimately, you were just grinding an axe against the left.

Another thread that comes to mind is one I started about returning flood prone areas to nature, rather than allowing continued building of homes and businesses. Is that a conservative position? I don't think so.

I believe you. I must have missed that thread.

There may be more threads that don't come readily to mind. The point is that I'm usually debating topics for which I have an interest, and I'm going to be honest about my position. Should I be doing something else? I don't get your complaint, really (other than understanding that you're tired of the perpetual antagonism). Have you urged liberals to start threads from a conservative point of view, and I missed it?

No, it's mostly about the perpetual antagonism. And it's certainly not just you; yours just stood out today for no particular reason other than it being the same old thing.

I don't believe I argued the things you say I argued. I haven't argued that Republicans haven't moved right, and in fact volunteered that they have moved right on government and economic issues.

Not that I saw. I saw you say they moved right on "some" issues, but not on anything specific. Apologies if I missed it.

Also, with regards to marriage equality, I would argue that marriage equality is a conservative value - marriage, family, unity; these are all things that conservatives tend to value very strongly and (I think) they tend to excel in. The only thing that made it a partisan issue was religion.

In sum, they have moved slightly to the right since 1994. But the total range of movement to the right is far less than Dems have moved to the left.

How are you defining "far less"? I see "more left from center than right is from center", but what makes it "far less right than left"? What makes it "extreme"? Also, I took a closer look at the interactive chart and saw some interesting stuff.

If we assume the center of the chart is actual political center, where's there's no particular bias in any direction, then the left was closer to center than the right was in 1994. In fact, if you look at the image I've attached, the "distance" either group has moved from center is almost exactly the same. So I'm still struggling to see the "extreme" you're talking about.

Regarding Trump, I don't like his personality or the way he talks about issues and people.

lol ok.

[MindTrap028]

If we assume the center of the chart is actual political center, where's there's no particular bias in any direction, then the left was closer to center than the right was in 1994. In fact, if you look at the image I've attached, the "distance" either group has moved from center is almost exactly the same. So I'm still struggling to see the "extreme" you're talking about.

Haven't followed the whole thread, but it does seem to me that Bernie sanders is significantly more a shift to the left, then Donald is to the right.
So at least on some level I think a large shift to the left has been made then to the right. Though it doesn't appear that way on your nifty chart

Now, I could be wrong, but isn't open socialism kinda an "extreme" left position, and he had at least a decent shot at winning the nomination (IE it isn't an insignificant minority).
And while Trump ran as a republican, he hardly represents the kind of right that Regan was, and that is what I would consider a more "extreme" move to the right.

so I think I see what he is talking about... That you don't makes me think i have one of the above wrong... what say you?