comprehension or deliberate dishonesty packaged as efforts to "save the democracy" via Internet posting. Enlighten me. What, precisely, am I being "duped" on? What conclusion, exactly, have I not reached yet?

Is nothing but a cult of personality completely beholden to the whims of Donald J Trump. It is incapable of any action not sanctioned by him and his “beautiful ideas” it has not had a party platform in over 4 years and will completely turn a 180 on something they have been fighting for (border bill) if he disapproves. Loyalty is the only virtue in this party and there is no end to the depravity they will show to prove it. All the adults have left or are leaving, it won’t be long till Rick Scott of Jack Hawley is senate party leader, And I fully expect a MAGA VP candidate this year as well. If you stay with the Republican Party this is what you are supporting, the party of Lincoln was shot in the middle of Times Square a long time ago.

I know what the GOP is, at both the national and local level. Respectfully, I know it better than you. I disagree with you and others that there is nothing left to save, and no good people in the party to fight for, or that the solution is to simply hand all power over to the modern Democratic Party.

The fact I don’t see any path for a rational GOP you would support if the current Republicans continue winning elections. Given the binary political world we live in that means Dems must and obviously if you choose not to vote that is not supporting Republicans but it also increases the odds they win as opposed to a world where folks like you vote for Dems.

I readily admit Biden has issues and understand many disagree with his policies but actively encouraging Russia to attack allies you think have not paid their fair share as another prong in the Trump / Bannin / Miller effort to upend the post world war 2 world order should be a non starter And in my view not voting for Trump while continuing to support down ballot Republicans who won’t denounce Trump and or support him is not going to lead to the return of the Republican Party of yore.

How does a Speaker Johnson bring back the return of the old Republican Party?

How do we get any kind of restrictions on illegal immigration or any kind of control of the border?

How do we get government spending under control?

A country in which those things don't happen is, IMO, a failed country.

If I vote for Democrats, I know none of those things are going to happen.

How does continuing to vote for Republicans in the current environment lead to the return of a rational Republican Party?

As to your issues with Dems, the Dems just agreed to a Bi-partisan deal on the border that multiple Republican Senators said would be better than any deal they could get under a Republican President. To reach that agreement Dems sacrificed their biggest immigration priority a solution for the dreamers a policy that is overwhelmingly supprted by majorities of both parties. It would be law if Republicans had not walked away from what they demanded. Given that fact how can you say you will vote for Republicans and fix that issue.

Ditto for Republicans and spending. As I have written here before the Republicans have figured out dont tax and spend is more popular than tax and spend. The last Republican who showed real concern about the the deficit was Reagan and he agreed to raise texes in order to deal with it. I am happy to look at spending cuts in retrurn for higher taxes (as are many Dems) but Republicans wont go for that.

If you are going to exclusively support a third party have at it but dont tell me you can vote for current Republicans and meet the standards you are setting for Dems.

The Dems agreed to that deal to remove the border as an election issue for Joe Biden. None of the provisions really had teeth. While I agree it should have been passed, let's not pretend Democrats nobly fell on their swords on this.

I may be pretty sure what the Republicans will do spending-wise, but there's a small percentage indicating I may be surprised. OTOH, I 100 percent know what the Democrats will do, and am equally 100 percent sure I won't like it.

I never said I would vote for current Republicans. I'm asking why I should vote for current Democrats rather than stay home?

You just don't accept it using the black and white logic of it, in which you are correct. True, voting for a Democrat means you're voting for something you don't support.

But it belies nuance and pragmatism, in which one realizes that in the words of Rush, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." Taking a defensive position and accepting the less desirable outcome is part of life, not just in elections.

My guess is you know you're covered by guaranteed to go blue Illinois. If you lived in Wisconsin, it might be a different conversation.

It's also interesting to see the argument that you won't vote for anyone who will spend in a way you don't like, apparently no matter what will happen as to other issues.

Random Person X litters on my street. Random Person Y litters, too, but he also says - repeatedly - he might someday stop littering. Y has also repeatedly expressed a desire to murder me, has bought weapons for the purpose, and has threatened me directly.

In a hypothetical election between X and Y, I can't imagine saying "well, both litter and I don't like that, so I guess I'm staying home." It isn't too hard to tell which one is the bigger threat, even if I don't like that X litters on my street, and even if Y sometimes says he'll stop littering (but, somehow, never does).

something different on spending? Deficit doubled under Reagan, increased by 36% under HW Bush, 57% undr W Bush and 33% under Trump.

Paul Ryan changed the CBO scoring rules to allow for the magic asterik that projected economic growth that would offset his tax cuts so he did not have to pay for them. Republicans have passed tax cuts with 10 year sunsets because they dont need to be paid for and they know the sunset will be easily extended as opposed to rasing taxes.

All evidence of the last 40 years is the Republican party cares a lot about tax rates but not so much about the deficit.

Still better than zero.

Maintain what was once bipartisan foreign policy, and stop a further erosion of norms.

Having Trump in power the first time, opposed from within by adults, did a number on us. Imagine time 2 with Stephen Miller and Cash Patel at the helm.

Or remember how Trump dealt with the one crisis he got dealt in COVID. What any competent POTUS would have used to bring us together Trump used to aid whack jobs and wage more culture war.

Plenty of people have been forced to vote defensively. Gay people had to hold their nose and vote dem before Obama. Pro DACA folks are forced to vote for the party that will sacrifice them to negotiate on foreign policy but won't put long time US residents in camps.

You'd need a Democratic president and house with a narrow Democratic or Republican (Unclear how many mcconnel types are left in 2024) senate majority.

Or you need a filibuster proof republican majority and a house majority with Trump in charge.

The R house blocked a fix at the border under Obama that had bipartisan senate support. It just blocked the best deal they'll conceivably get.

In terms of tuition forgiveness. You just have to bank on two conservative SCOTUS justices not dying in the next four years. Pretty good bet. Granted if that happened states could legislate gun reform again.

Remember when Trump passed a border bill with control of the entire government? I remember running the 2018 campaign on caravans but that's just me.

Remember when Trump used his majority to cut spending and right size entitlements? Oh never mind. He'll just cut taxes again.

So that's how you get a Democratic president with filibuster-proof majorities, the group of whom definitely have the attention span to get those things done.

I agree the border deal shouldn't have been blocked. But the fact that deal is "the best deal they'll conceivably get" is more than enough reason to not want the above group to get into power.

The SC could block tuition forgiveness because Biden was trying to do it via EO. There's nothing that says it couldn't be legally mandated via Congress (which, granted, is how these things are supposed to be done). See my opening paragraph.

With Republicans being asked to vote against their interests for the purposes of stopping Trump, why should they feel confidence when Democrats not only refuse to put any of their interests on the back burner but (as we now have evidence via Biden's behavior) will promise moderation and then renege?

Dems are losing West Virginia.

Dems have to defend Ohio, Montana, and Arizona. They could take Texas if they had a crazy good night.

If dems have a great election they might take the house by 10 or so votes. More likely it has a slim R margin.

The dems aren't capable of taking margins that would allow them to do that much.


But the whole point of this is that to make the R's a party again they have to lose bad. They don't care if Susan Collins tsk tsks Trump, or that you feel kind of icky about filling in the Trump bubble. They care that MAGA will primary them unless they kowtow to glorious leader. The Republican Party hasn't cared about policy since Obama was in office and they haven't cared about debt since Clinton was in office.

There were so many off ramps provided to the party these last 3 years, they have consistently and relentlessly chosen Trump every single time. Meanwhile Democrats keep presenting moderate bills that piss of their looney base and keep the status quo. I would argue Trump has pushed the democrats to the right such that they are essentially the moderate party today. Meanwhile the GOP keeps pushing more and more into populism. Your silent moral center has stayed far too silent or quit politics all together. When exactly are they going to make themselves known?

Such as what?

I don't consider the inflation-causing income redistribution to be moderate.

I don't consider "free college" to be moderate.

I would argue Trump has pushed both parties towards their fringe.

And you criticize MD for not abandoning his party and then criticize the "silent moral center" for quitting politics.

party back to being a rational party. My issue / concern is when that is not happening do you still suport the party.. I have a close friend who is a Republican State Rep of the kind you and MD would like. She has the Maga / Freedom Caucus types attacking her and trying to primary her. These are the same folks who ran Jim Durkin out of politics. My question is how do you thread that needle? If you contest primaries and the MAGA folks win do you just fall in line and still vote R or do you send a message by voting for the Dem?

Whi bill do you condiser to be inflation causing income redistribution? I dont disagree legislation has contributed some to inflation but most studies would say it is far from the primary or majority cause. The other fact is without Dems you would not have had the CHIPS act or The Bipartisan infrastrucutre act both of which are generating investment and economic growth. Republicans didnt want those acts but are happy to celebrate the investments in their districts. The perfect example for the Florida Rep who was called out for promoting funding that she distributed in her district that came from a bill she voted agaisnt.

politicians dont receive any message from those who stay home. They listen to those who are active on issues, donate and vote. Sitting at home is interpreted (if considered at all) as being okay with the ideas of the winning candidate.

that's the additional benefit of the third party candidates; they don't have a chance to win, but the hope is that some of their main platforms will be adopted by one of the two major parties.

night and say the voters who stayed home have spoken and I need change my policies to attract them. Now if polling shows and issue will help them turn out more voters going forward they may change / take on that issue but that is different.

I get the idea of third party as a message. Of course I doubt anyone agrees in total with any party so what is the message. As an example I think many former small government Republicans are attracted to the Libertarian Party due to its promotion of small government and individual liberties. My guess is many of those same folks do not support abortion rights, or decriminalization of drugs / prositution. Looking at their platform they have the following statement

"In every matter, we advocate the consistent application of the principle of the non-initiation of coercion, physical force, or fraud. Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval."

Taken literally this would prohibit the police form lying to a suspect to elicit a confession. I suspect many of the former Republicans on this Board would not like taking away the right of police to do that.

My final comment is despite the rise in the number of self identifying independents I dont see any thing to indicate a change in the research that most independents strongly lead one way or the other. I think many people like the attraction of a third party when they dont like the candidate from their "traditional" party. If you really want to send a message then by all means get involved in a third party but only voting for that party when you dont like the candidate will not change anything.

I don't approve of their agenda one bit.

I've never voted from Trump and won't vote for him this year either.

Doesn't mean that I am going to vote for Biden or Danny Davis. Niether of my US Senators are up.

a "income redistribution" Covid relief bill? I get that the last round of Covid relief passed under Biden had a role in our bout of inflation, but was it much different from what passed under Trump?

Biden's was as the pandemic was waning and there was a lot of discussion at the time about whether it was needed.

But the "you can be FDR" crowd prevailed.

The trump tax cuts were supposed to lead to capital investments spurring the economy to such strenghts the deficit would be reduced. Of course that did not happen.

This quote is from the CBO Director in January 2020 before any COVID spending.

“Not since World War II has the country seen deficits during times of low unemployment that are as large as those that we project — nor, in the past century, has it experienced large deficits for as long as we project,” Phillip Swagel, director of the CBO, said in January 2020.

• Click here for link at https://www.propublica.org/article/national-debt-trump