Despite losing the 2020 election to Joe Biden by more than seven million votes, Donald Trump tells a Republican summit near Orlando that he would have won every state if not for widespread voter fraud.
Then you’re part of the problem. You object to extremism on the Right, but favor it on the Left. I’m finding this is pretty typical of the average Lemmy user, sadly.
Welcome to the the fallacy that is the US political landscape, every anti-right view is a pro-left view and vice versa. This is the outcome of a two-party system. If you think this is stupid you should be a supporter of proportional representation and in favor of the abolishment of the two-party system.
We’ve had a two-party system for a long time without politics being this polarized, so I can’t chalk it up to just that, but I acknowledge it’s a factor. I am for a third+ party option and proportional representation, obviously. However, I also just think extremists of any stripe regard anyone who isn’t them as extremists of another stripe and can’t wrap their minds around the concept of political moderation.
One of the issue with a two-party system is that all it takes is one side to polarize the issues. Once it’s polarized there’s no political moderation because it devolves into “us vs them”. The opposing parties must take the opposite sides on political views and the common folk are either “with us or against us”. It’s pretty clear with the republican voter base that even if they don’t agree with the republican party (as evident from Roe vs Wade) they will still vote republican, because they have to accept the majority of the democratic base to change their vote. The two-party system is bound to extremism the moment one of the parties decides to turn to extremist, you either toe the party line or you essentially do a 180 on you political views. You can’t have political moderation when one side decides to polarize issues. And that’s where the benefits of proportional representation come to light, because one party can’t just radicalize the entire political system. If one political party turns too extremist for your views you can find (or create) adjacent parties to support.
Both sides are not the same. One side is fascist. The other side can politely complain about it or can resist by taking action. Fascism has never been defeated without action. Marginalizing conservatism is marginalizing fascism.
Do not defend fascists. They neither need nor want your defense.
I’m not confusing anything. Communism is just as bad as fascism and just as authoritarian, and yet most Lemmies support it. I don’t want the Far Left in charge any more than I want the Far Right in charge. You’re defending someone who is calling for a ban on organized religion and funding to States with majority conservative voters. That’s extreme and if you can’t see it, then I’m inclined to think you’re just cut from the same extremist cloth. Sad.
What does communism have to do with anything at all? I think you are using boogie man words to try to defend a weak argument. No one here has said anything about communism. Can you define communism? Define it. Go ahead. And then explain what it has to do with anything we are talking about.
No matter how you frame it, there is nothing extreme about resisting extremism. Conservatives are extremists. Resisting conservatism is the appropriate and moral thing to do.
Thank you for illustrating how every word uttered by a conservative is deception or manipulation. Every word.
Thank you for illustrating how every word uttered by a conservative is deception or manipulation. Every word.
LOL, I’m not a conservative, but you just demonstrated you’re an extremist. I have learned not to bother debating anything with extremists. I brought up Communism, because most Lemmies support it, and I’m not just talking about the Tankies. I’m done with you now.
Everyone talks like that online, but I doubt there’s anything there. Most of us who vent frustrations about the self-destructive authoritarians elected by what must be extremely gullible voters, are also likely to vote for more aid to their children than they vote for, more support for their public health, more support for education, technology and science in their regions than they do, more income for their most desperate, more safety net for their citizens who fall, better healthcare for their infirm, more investment in their future than they do, etc.
Then you’re part of the problem. You object to extremism on the Right, but favor it on the Left. I’m finding this is pretty typical of the average Lemmy user, sadly.
Welcome to the the fallacy that is the US political landscape, every anti-right view is a pro-left view and vice versa. This is the outcome of a two-party system. If you think this is stupid you should be a supporter of proportional representation and in favor of the abolishment of the two-party system.
We’ve had a two-party system for a long time without politics being this polarized, so I can’t chalk it up to just that, but I acknowledge it’s a factor. I am for a third+ party option and proportional representation, obviously. However, I also just think extremists of any stripe regard anyone who isn’t them as extremists of another stripe and can’t wrap their minds around the concept of political moderation.
One of the issue with a two-party system is that all it takes is one side to polarize the issues. Once it’s polarized there’s no political moderation because it devolves into “us vs them”. The opposing parties must take the opposite sides on political views and the common folk are either “with us or against us”. It’s pretty clear with the republican voter base that even if they don’t agree with the republican party (as evident from Roe vs Wade) they will still vote republican, because they have to accept the majority of the democratic base to change their vote. The two-party system is bound to extremism the moment one of the parties decides to turn to extremist, you either toe the party line or you essentially do a 180 on you political views. You can’t have political moderation when one side decides to polarize issues. And that’s where the benefits of proportional representation come to light, because one party can’t just radicalize the entire political system. If one political party turns too extremist for your views you can find (or create) adjacent parties to support.
You are confusing resistance as “extremism”.
Both sides are not the same. One side is fascist. The other side can politely complain about it or can resist by taking action. Fascism has never been defeated without action. Marginalizing conservatism is marginalizing fascism.
Do not defend fascists. They neither need nor want your defense.
I’m not confusing anything. Communism is just as bad as fascism and just as authoritarian, and yet most Lemmies support it. I don’t want the Far Left in charge any more than I want the Far Right in charge. You’re defending someone who is calling for a ban on organized religion and funding to States with majority conservative voters. That’s extreme and if you can’t see it, then I’m inclined to think you’re just cut from the same extremist cloth. Sad.
What does communism have to do with anything at all? I think you are using boogie man words to try to defend a weak argument. No one here has said anything about communism. Can you define communism? Define it. Go ahead. And then explain what it has to do with anything we are talking about.
No matter how you frame it, there is nothing extreme about resisting extremism. Conservatives are extremists. Resisting conservatism is the appropriate and moral thing to do.
Thank you for illustrating how every word uttered by a conservative is deception or manipulation. Every word.
deleted by creator
LOL, I’m not a conservative, but you just demonstrated you’re an extremist. I have learned not to bother debating anything with extremists. I brought up Communism, because most Lemmies support it, and I’m not just talking about the Tankies. I’m done with you now.
You should listen
Everyone talks like that online, but I doubt there’s anything there. Most of us who vent frustrations about the self-destructive authoritarians elected by what must be extremely gullible voters, are also likely to vote for more aid to their children than they vote for, more support for their public health, more support for education, technology and science in their regions than they do, more income for their most desperate, more safety net for their citizens who fall, better healthcare for their infirm, more investment in their future than they do, etc.