I will never understand why some Democrat elected politicians think that Democrat voters elected them to vote against the Democrats.
"The GOP are winning elections across the country by actually opposing their opponents?
Let's do the exact opposite of that winning strategy for no apparent reason!"
Doc Freemo 
@louis I totally vote for democrats specifically when I think they will vote against other democrats... I rarely vote for republicans but do the same there. I vote for people who vote for what is right, not what is popular.
@freemo Sure, of course, some voters expect that. But it's pretty fair to assume that the vast majority of people who vote for Democrats want them to vote with Democrats to enact Democrat policies, and likewise for Republican voters.
And especially when the majority is in the right, voting against it is a defiance of the mandate of the people that put them in office.
I'm not so sure about that, possibly. I would **hope** most people want them to vote ethically and by the principles they espouse, and not by a party. Most people seem to vote for the individual not for the party. I know very few people who will exclusively vote one party or another and expect party loyalty. Most people I know will lean towards one party or another but generally will vote for the individual and not the party. That said, doesnt mean the people I know represent everyone so i cant make a strong assertion here of what most people want.
@louis Just a quick look, 53% of active voters do not declare a party affiliation. While they still may vote a straight party ticket that seems unlikely if they dont declare a party. It would seem, at least on a cursory glance, the majority of voters do not want party-politics.
@freemo If that conclusion were true, it would be a lot easier for NPA candidates to achieve federal office.
When someone signs their candidacy form with a party next to their name, they're signing on to the party's platform, and voters should be able to expect them to adhere to that.
Now, I'm not decrying legitimate breaks for matters of one's conscience.
What I'm pissed off about is shitty politicians in swing districts betraying their own to avoid offending the moderates on the other side.
> If that conclusion were true, it would be a lot easier for NPA candidates to achieve federal office.
Not at all, most americans arent too smart, so they easily bought into the two-party myth and tend to believe it. The two-party myth restricts their votes well within the two parties, but they generally want to see cross-aisle candidates, it was why Obama got such huge support, he was seen as a cross-party candidate and why Biden's was so weak, he was not.
They will always buy the two party myth so they will not vote for a third-party generally, but they absolutely will vote across parties and want their politicians to not be polarized to the absurd ends of either side, such as voting blindly with their party.
> When someone signs their candidacy form with a party next to their name, they're signing on to the party's platform, and voters should be able to expect them to adhere to that.
Again disagree. This signals only that they adhere to the core values of the party. Not that they need to exist on the extreme end of it and blindly follow with the most extreme and harmful policies others in their party vote for. If someone says they are a democrat they expect them to support taxes on the rich, and healthcare reform, and similar tenants, but not necessarily to vote however the majority of the party votes, in fact, I would argue they want the exact opposite, they want someone who can compromise across parties while still staying true to their parties core values.
> What I'm pissed off about is shitty politicians in swing districts betraying their own to avoid offending the moderates on the other side.
If you arent moderate in your opinions you should absolutely be out of politics... it isnt about pissing off the moderates, its about not being an extreme polarized radical person, but rather a moderate person who considers the nuance of a situation and picks rationed and logical decisions. There should not exist a single politician that is not moderate. The majority of people I would imagine tend to agree.
Being radical is not integrity, folowing the crowd is not integrity, quite the opposite.
Following the principles is exactly what they are doing by not agreeing with their party when both parties have turned to complete lunacy.
@freemo You should read the above thread again.
I never once mentioned radical or extremist policies in the initial posts (I only mentioned it later in direct rebuttals to your claims). You completely read that into my argument all on your own.
If you arent moderate you are radical. If you follow the majority of your party you are radical as both parties are currently extremely radical.
You didnt have to say it. But I do concede you did not say that.
@freemo Yeah, I don't agree with that assessment. The Dem party certainly has some radical elements, but describing their core party platform or the majority of their members as radical does not seem to be supported by reality.
The Republican platform is currently "let's dismantle the government and constitution in the name of efficiency for our god-king" and the Democrat platform is an incredibly meek "no, please stop, maybe, sir?".
> Yeah, I don't agree with that assessment. The Dem party certainly has some radical elements, but describing their core party platform or the majority of their members as radical does not seem to be supported by reality.
To be clear it is NOT their "core party platform", ie their core values, as stated that are radical. They are largely reasaonable even if i disagree with some of it.
The problem is the members, both voters and candidates, have become absolute lunatics, this is **contrary** to their core values if anything. Thats my point, the dems that actually stick to the party's stated values **must** disagree with the majority of the party that has become completely radicalized.
> The Republican platform is currently "let's dismantle the government and constitution in the name of efficiency for our god-king"
They certainly have, and that is why I claim they are radicalized, among other reasons. On the republican side, this time around he is very clearly trained and targeting dictatorship... last time he was just a fool with delusions of granduer. Frankly even the democrats arent seeing the moves it seems. Musk's mass email was an attempt to catalog all federal employees, identify political enemies, and eliminate them. The system is designed that the president does NOT have a list of all employees, he couldnt even send out the mass email directly.
It is right out of Hitler's playbook with one to one matching of events.
False flag: Reichstag fire -> Trump attempted assassination
Removing political enemies: Communists being arrested -> Musk's mass email and control over judicial branch
Disarming the populace: Verordnung gegen den Waffenbesitz der Juden -> Trumps gun restraining order
> the Democrat platform is an incredibly meek "no, please stop, maybe, sir?"
We just had 4 years of a president whose career was entirely motivated by keeping segregation alive. They literally just had the only possible politican more racist than Trump himself.
Not to mention the riots and violence I witnessed... meek is far from the truth, they were radical **first** and managed to radicalize trump supports in response and this is why it turned into this. They just got out radicalized by Trump and their whole response is "clearly we werent radical enough".
@freemo You are literally the only person I know who thinks Biden wasn't a moderate. But also, he wasn't the party's latest nominee, nor does he seem to have any part in the party's current anti-authoritarian platform. He just pardoned his family and noped his way outta the whole situation.
So, judging the Democratic Party in 2025 based on Biden's policies in the '70s and a tiny minority of rioters 5 years ago hardly seems prudent.
You're conflating the majority with vocal minorities.
@freemo As long as we have a pro-dictatorship party and an anti-dictatorship party, the choice for every American should be clear. You don't have to marry the Democrats for life, but describing them as "radical" in this moment for primarily opposing the very authoritarianism you recognize to be a threat seems to be extremely counter-productive.
@freemo They're not trying to force you to use pronouns. They're trying to stop the dismantling of our country.
No they are trying to dismantle it their way rather than his... Which I will admit is marginally better as it isnt full on dictatorship just yet, but its literally one foot over the line.
Thankfully I dont buy the two-party myth so I have non-radical choices.
@freemo Whether you buy into it or not, the fact remains that all but two parties remain almost entirely toothless.
@louis As far as im concerned all but one party is toothless in any year.
@freemo During a trifecta, no doubt. In a perfect world, though, having separate branches of government should lead to oppositional control which requires a greater degree of compromise.
@louis For each individual candidate all but one party will be toothless, but sure across all of congress thats different, i generally find it best when congress is republican and presidents are democrat, but that was back when republicans and democrats werent radical... now having either in control, or shared control, is a garunteed end of the USA.
Unless we break the two-party habit, which we wont, no matter how the next election goes america has about a decade left before civil war. That is being generous.
As far as I'm concerned you have two choices, support one of the two main parties and lots of people die and the USA collapses, or somehow we break the two-party myth and start fixing shit.
> As long as we have a pro-dictatorship party and an anti-dictatorship party, the choice for every American should be clear.
Only if you buy the two party myth, which most people do, which is exactly why he won once at all.
But the point is when you have a pro-dictatorship party and a slight less pro-dictatorship party (dems arent actively going for dictatorship but they are extremely fascist and a step away) then you just have two extremely radical parties with one slightly more radical than the other.
> You are literally the only person I know who thinks Biden wasn't a moderate.
Thats funny because while online few people would agree with me in person almost everyone i met said they hated him but those who supported him just hated him less than trump and thought he was one of our worst canddidates.
My maid, who obviously isnt rich or anything, who is a black woman, actually just brought it up today. I generally dont talk politics but she brought up the whole racist thing and how he set black people back decades. In fact I dont personally know a single black person who didnt think he was a racist radical ass, its just that most of them voted for him because Trump is even more of a racist ass. I dont think I ever met a single black person in person who didnt think he was radical... seriously.
That said I dont expect people around me to represent the whole
@freemo I never said people didn't think he was bad, I said they thought he was a moderate.
And im saying that people thought he was bad because he of many reasons including his pro-segregation stance, his barrage of racist comments, and his radical nature... he was bad because he was radical (not a moderate).
@freemo
> its about not being an extreme polarized radical person, but rather a moderate person who considers the nuance of a situation
It's not about either of those things. It's about consistency and integrity and actually following the principles you claimed to champion when you ran for the office you now hold.