What do you do when you really, STRONGLY disagree with other Dems...

[FormerRepublican]

...about certain issues? I know I disagree with Republicans over just about everything. I wouldn't touch George W. Boosh with a 100,000 foot pole. I despise the religious right who want to force everyone else to live according to their religious dogma. I can't stand the criminality and corruption infesting our government, or the increasing fascism. And worship at the Corporate trough has gone way, way too far. Compassionate Conservatism is a joke - what they really mean is cruelty toward the poor and helpless within our society.

On the other hand, there are some issues on the left that I really, REALLY struggle with. One is illegal immigration. Another is national security. Having people accuse me of being racist because I object to the role illegal immigration plays in the proliferation of MS-13, for example. And the horror I feel when people say we shouldn't be loyal to the United States because of all the terrible things our government has done in the past, and we shouldn't respond to terror attacks for the same reason. I feel strongly enough about these issues that the disagreement makes me want to find some other political path that simply doesn't exist. I know that it makes me skip DU for a while.

In the end I feel disenfranchised and that no party represents me or cares about my concerns.

Does the political middle no longer exist in America? And what do you do when you feel that no political party represents you?

[bliss_eternal]

1. When you were republican

did you agree with everyone about every aspect of what the party represented?

[FormerRepublican]

6. It's not about disagreement per se. I think it's about the level of...

disagreement over certain issues.

For example, I disagree strongly enough with the religious right over abortion and legislation of morality that being part of a party that actively advances that view into political action is simply a no go for me. I could not associate with the party in those circumstances.

On the left, I really, really have a hard time with Dems saying that illegal immigration is OK and we should do nothing. And I think the accusation of racism is thrown around on DU like candy - the insult du jour whenever anyone wants to talk about the issue. It's a dodge, IMO, and truly an insult to the person who wants to talk about issues. It's used as a tool to stifle all opposition.

The issue of loyalty to my country - that could be a no go for me. Regardless of prior bad acts, the US is my country and I do love her, wrong though her politicians may be. And I have no understanding whatsoever of ideology that says we should do nothing to defend her when attacked - by terrorists or anyone else. That doesn't mean I agree with the invasion of Iraq, which I REALLY disagree with, but I do think some response to the attacks of 9/11 were warranted. Maybe my patriotism is old fashioned, but it's how I feel. And I don't place the welfare of citizens of other nations above the welfare of our own citizens, nor will I allow our citizens to be injured or killed in support of an illusory value for global human life. Americans matter to me, too.

I do feel that politics has become far more polarized than it has been in the past, and the political views are becoming more extreme. Back when I was a Republican, I would never have heard the political views in currency from EITHER side. This phenomenon is new, IMO, and it's why I'm struggling to find a political home because my political philosophy is somewhere in the middle.

[DemExpat]

2. My impression is that just about nobody here on DU and in the wider

world feels that one political party represents them on all issues. I know that I certainly don't feel that way.

It is nevertheless so very easy for me to be a Democrat in mind, heart and soul because the Repub party has so much LESS that agrees with my views, and besides, I don't LIKE most Republicans....:-)

I think that you take all of the discussion here on DU as being representative of the Dem party view, and that is also not the case.

But I do understand your frustration at not feeling entirely at home, but that is part of living in this modern world IMHO.

:kick:

DemEx

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. No, the political middle does not exist anymore

you are NOT the only one noticing this... as a friend of mine put it, we are living in pre-revolutionary times

Now to MS =13... you realize the origin of that gang in the Central American operations of the 1980s? Good, if you did not, do some homework (On edit the reason why this is important is the gang started running drugs for the CIA, and they have become quite a nightmare from El Salvador to Canada... but the original leaders are no longer running it. They are criminals but at times reap the winds... you shall reap the whirlwind. It does have a technical name and every country playing the intelligence game knows of it: Blow back. Now every country playing with the fire of real politik also knows that the actions themselves are value neutral... in many cases... for it is a zero sum game. By the way, this is the way the CIA sees things... and your life or mine is not that valuable.. maybe slightly more valuable than that of a foreign national but not by much... sorry over the years have seen some of this. Oh and old fashioned nationalism is what allows nations to ignore things like this... there is no greater love for country than to hold your government accountable, especially when it is NOT popular. Now there is a difference from just criticizing because the country is always wrong, which is not a Democratic thing, but a far left thing, or the my country right or wrong, extreme right)

Hey Teddy Roosevelt was quite a critique, and in the middle of a war. use him as an example and you cannot accuse him of not being a patriot... even an old fashioned one... but he understood the fine line between patriotism and jingoism.

Now as to illegal immigration, I will repeat what I have said many times before.... you want to stop it... politicos, I don't care what party, better start enforcing the law. What you think that Walmart would continue to HIRE Illegals, if they were in danger of loosing property? That is in the 1996 immigration law. Since 2000 the INS enforcement unit that was supposed to check for things like that has been mostly dismantled... gets worst, enforcement is non existent, unless politically convenient.

Now if all of a sudden the Central Valley of California growers were forced to stop hiring Illegals, how fast do you think they would stop coming across the border? The solution to this extremely complex complex is enforcement of the laws on the books, no more laws required... but nobody wants to shake them boats, whether they are Dems or Pubblies... I mean you have not met the ire of the Central Valley Agricultural concerns... and they are a small microcosm of what is going on nation wide.... but if you want your political career to go anywhere... you don't hold these views... or they will run you out of town.

[FormerRepublican]

8. I think this is a good example of what frustrates me:

"Now to MS =13... you realize the origin of that gang in the Central American operations of the 1980s? Good, if you did not, do some homework"

In my post, I commented on the role illegal immigration plays in MS-13 and made no mention of it's origins. Yet when you replied, you immediately pointed out that MS-13 began in LA. This origins issue is a simplification of the problems presented by MS-13. Yes, it began in LA, but those in the gang were illegal immigrants from El Salvador, were deported back to El Salvador where the gang proliferated, and then re-entered the US as illegal immigrants. The whole role that illegal immigration plays in this cross-national proliferation of MS-13 was ignored to point out their origins in LA. Does it really matter where their origins were when illegal immigration has contributed to their cross-national proliferation? Would the gang have even begun in LA if they hadn't illegally immigrated in the first place?

IMO, if we're so polarized by the issue that we can't even discuss the facts of the matter, what hope do we have of finding a solution to legitimate problems?

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Re read what I said adn the origins is not a simplicfication

MS 13 is a classic example of blowback... a classic example.. and it comes from the practice of Real Politik... unlike you, I will hold my country responsible for her actions, just like Teddy Roosevelt did... and yuo cannot say T.R was a pinko crazy liberal who hated his country.

Now re-read the whole post, I was woking on an expansion... oh and by the way, I have dealth with the gangs ok

[FormerRepublican]

13. I agree that MS-13 is blowback. That's pretty clear. But it's a problem

...for us now that must be dealt with.

"unlike you, I will hold my country responsible for her actions, just like Teddy Roosevelt did..."

I guess I'd prefer to hold the individuals responsible - like Reagan, in the case of MS-13 - rather than an entire country, most of whom had nothing whatsoever to do with CIA actions in El Salvador.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. We are not disagreeing that we must deal with MS 13

as the thugs they are ... but it was not reagan who ran that operation, and we as a nation SHOULD HAVE dealt with the whole Iran Contra\ BCCI deal back then. We did not... so now we are paying the consequences. We should have thrown many of the folks who approved these operations in jail for violating US Law... we did not... and now they are back. So MS-13 is a reflection of what happened then, but so is this administration. Many of the principals were around then and came back... Joe Negroponte, our Intelligence Czar, the new intelligence service... he was the Ambassador of the US in El Salvador.. and he approved many of the operations involving these thugs... and now he is the Intelligence Czar, and what can I say about Poindexter? By the way, when most of these things were approved Reagan's Alzheimer's was pretty advanced. Ironically he might have been the first politico to speak the truth when he said he did not remember. But that is neither here or there.

[FormerRepublican]

19. I didn't vote for them. I know a lot of other people who didn't either.

Should they be held responsible? How exactly do we stop legally elected officials from acting in their offices when they ignore our demands that they stop? Does that mean the country should be held responsible for those actions?

A prime example is Bush, who is currently enjoying 38% approval ratings, which means the vast majority of America DOESN'T agree with what he's doing. And then there's the stolen election to consider...

People at the top are going to do things they shouldn't, and THEY should be held accountable for those things. I agree that the whole BCCI and Iran-Contra disaster should have been dealt with. But it was Clinton who declined to do so - what could we do about that?

Then there's the issue of people genuinely acting in our nations best interests, but whose actions turn out to be oh so wrong. Clinton's refusal to hold the Iran-Contra BCCI goons accountable likely fell into this category. Hind sight is always 20/20.

These issues are quite complex, and in many cases the best we can do is try to fix things that get broken in the process.

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. Under International Law yes the country, you read right

is responsible... If and when Bush and Co face justice, so will the country. i am sure you are familiar with the term reparations... as in war reparations. We imposed those on germany in 1919, what makes you think that worst case scenario the same will not happen to this country? The leaders may do what they do, but we are responsible. It is the government of the people, by the people and for the people... time to take to the streets.

As to BCCI, as I recall it, it was an agreement, a bad one, not to pursue it. Moreover, their star witness (Ollie North) received immunity from any prosecution because what he spoke off in the hearings could not be touched by a prosecutor.

Yes they are complex, but in the final analysis, it is US who are responsible.

By the way one of the problems facing the US is this sense of Excpetionalism that you expressed so well. Well, the last five years should have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are not exceptional, we are not unique... and if anything we are still a very young country that has not experienced the very worst a country can experience. If George declares himself President for Life, at that moment, the country will.

[FormerRepublican]

46. You point out something that I've found to be a double standard...

...in political discussions on DU. On the one hand, we don't hold people of other countries responsible for the actions of their leaders. Iraqis are not responsible for what Sadaam does, North Koreans are not responsible for what Kim Jong Il does, Chinese are not responsible... Well, you get the idea. Yet at the same time, we make every US citizen responsible for the crazed actions of a few elitist guys at the top of our government, many of whom acted against the express wishes of the public in the midst of massive protest and outrage. Why the double standard?

This is a dicotomy of thinking that I find applied to the US vs. other countries over and over again. What's wrong with looking at all countries equally?

I have no right to refuse to pay taxes, and no right to control my government beyond expressing my opinion and voting on election day. Even my vote is indirect, since majority votes can be ignored in favor of the results of the Electoral College. Why should I be held accountable for decisions that I had no part in? There's a bit of injustice lurking in the double standard, I think. And we fork over plenty of $$$ even when we aren't paying reparations. This current government is happier to fork over our tax dollars to every other country in the world rather than let poor and underpriviledged Americans receive any benefit from our tax dollars. But I have no doubt Bush's actions will force Americans who disagree with Administration crimes to fork over reparation dollars in the long run, either because Bush will be held internationally accountable, or because a subsequent Administration is forced to clean up the mess Bush left behind.

I agree that what our country is facing could get a lot worse. It's a sad era for America.

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. Germany 1919

the best case

Bosnia herzegovina

Iraq, and the sanctions

Want me to go on?

I worked for an International Body for 10 years, well actually a national one that worked for an international one. My view of International law is NOBODY IS ABOVE THE LAW, that includes the US

Also, insofar as a democracy is concerned, are we a government of the people and all that, or is this fiction? If it is the latter then you might have a point. If it is the former, we hold employees accountable, and we are accountable for the actions of our employees.

Again, your problem is you still believe in this thing called American Excptionalism, which is the basis for American Jingoism... we are not exceptional, at all.

Oh and by the way, if every American REFUSED to pay taxes it would have an effect. We should take lessons from nations who have rid themselves of their own tin pot dictators, and yes Romania comes to mind, as well as Chekoslovakia... they knew that ultimately the power, real power, resides in the people. The moment we all refuse to follow, their power goes poof. Would it get painful? You betcha....so what price are you willing to pay for the return of this country to Constitutional Rule?

Aa to the Electoral College.... the system was set by the founders, but that does not mean it cannot be changed, and we cannot get PUBLICALLY FINANCED ELECTIONS and DIRECT POPULAR VOTE for the Presidency. Would both require changes? Absolutly... would they be revolutionary? Not really, just following others. Will either party accept that? HELL NO... because it would suddenly bring the whole country into play, not 10 states. As to the way this current government spends its money, again they have given money to things like the Tusumani after they were embarrassed into it. We are, among developed countries, at the bottom of international donors, what you are quoting is a myth. but you would never know it since this legend is spread all the time... and yes, worst case scenario, when all is said and done... war reparations will have to be paid to Iraq... that was the epitome of agresive, expansive warfare. Funny, we set the definition at Nuremberg in '47, and all the work preparing for it between '44 and '47 and it may come back to byte us. Read the indictments for the Nuremberg trials and tell me how many of those four apply to the current government of the United States?

[bliss_eternal]

4. I asked you this

because I'm sincerely curious of where you stood in comparison to others in your party.

To be honest, there are some aspects or issues that I frequently disagree with others in the party about. But, I still feel that this party is more representative of my ideals and beliefs. When I disagree I say so and I make an effort to let my voice be heard to those that are supposed to represent me (senators,etc.).

Not everyone feels exactly the same way about the issues you stated above, btw. I honestly don't think that we all have to...but that's just my opinion of course. While I may disagree with another's stance here, I feel we're all entitled to think and feel differently on some issues--as long as at the base of those beliefs a person could still be considered liberal, democratic and/or progressive.

It's late and I'm kind of babbling. Sorry if I'm not making a lot of sense right now. LOL! Hope this helps some...

[FormerRepublican]

18. I think it's the level of disagreement that I feel over some issues.

In most cases, I disagree over something but it's no big deal because it's an issue that doesn't matter much to me.

But on some issues - whew, boy. On the national security issue, I actually did some polling on DU to make sure I wasn't imagining things. In my poll, I specifically asked about views regarding loyalty to the US. You can probably do a search and look up the poll. I was shocked to discover how many people on DU felt that it was wrong to be loyal to the US over other countries. For me, this was a hot button issue that caused me considerable unease.

And I do get tired of being called a racist because I'm concerned about the problems created by illegal immigration... (sigh) Given the fact that real racists have done some pretty horrifying things in the past, we should not be diluting the label by tossing it around like candy at everyone who disagrees with us over something...

And then there's the times I've been called a racist because I was concerned about national security...

[salin]

41. In times of great anger

and frustrations as has been wraught not just by the political rhetoric from the rightwing noise machine (talk radio, faux news, etc.), from republican policies and the realities of watching the hopelessness of "stopping" moves of the admin and GOP due to a one-party state (in terms of no checks and balances, no oversight, and a drying up all around of policy discussions to determine policy where differing views are valued - as it leads to more sound policy formulation) - leads to many expressing that frustration (on an anonymous board esp.) with hyperbole - hence disagreement becomes attacks laced with hyperbolic slurs.

We are also in an era where hyperbolic attacks has become *the* form of political discourse - and I blame Rush and Newt for heralding in this era and making it vogue - even in the halls of congress (imagine a VP telling a senator to F*ck himself in a past era - and there being no real public reaction). Thus when talking about an issue that a person feels strongly about (and that varies issue by issue, individual by individual) is much more likely to lead to a similar hyperbolic response, rather than an opening for discussion about the issue - and about differing views and looking for common ground in order to find solutions that could address the deepest concerns held by both people. That used to be how political policies were often carved together on the Hill - and "bipartisan" meant that folks from both parties sat and worked together to cobble out a policy that addressed the concerns of the other side until something came together that met the conditions of all and addressed the issue that was agreed to be an issue by all. What you witness here, imo, is symbolic of the overall breakdown of political discourse across the board - starting at the top.

[FormerRepublican]

44. Thank you for your very well thought out post.

I think you've found the heart of what's bothering me - both from the right and from the left. I do feel that there's far more in the Democratic party that I agree with than in the current mess the Republicans are claiming as a party. And I think political attack rather than informed discussion is at the heart of my angst.

I wonder if we'll ever return to the days when solving problems and finding common ground is more important than scoring political points...

I think I personally would find it easier to live with the various disagreements if my strongly held opinions on certain issues were respected, so that disagreement is a rational argument about policy rather than an in your face attack along the lines of "how could you be stupid enough to believe THAT! You can't be a Democrat if you believe THAT!" The attacks are certainly effective at stifling debate, however. No doubt that's why it's being used so extensively on both sides.

[salin]

48. stifling and dismissive

and yes, I do think that this is the point (to shut off discussion). Makes me sad. In part because when it happens here - it seems to cycle through to a point of self-righteousness ala - b/c someone (who holds the same position that you are advocating now) criticized me in this way and shut me down, I now have the right to do the same to you (even though you werent the original person -but same position -thus its okay)... and in response the person on the receiving end of the exchange, remembers, and the next time they find themselves in a discussion with someone who expresses the opinion of the first debate... remembering how they were attacked the person responds with vitriol - feeling self-justified because ... it had happened to him/her by someone with that same viewpoint... and so on and so on - dragging more people in one by one. *sigh*

I miss the days where discourse could happen - so that there was more discussion and more ability to learn from one another - esp when doing so strengthened allies and broaden views about possible political solutions. In the current climate, imo, we all lose.

[bigbrother05]

5. Think the Dems tend to nuance, not absolutes

Don't think the Dem policy is to support illegal immigration. Liberal/progressive values lean toward providing adequate pay, health care, and education in the US regardless of your birthplace or nationality. To really address the illegals problem would require enforcing not only border policies, you need to put teeth into policing the folks that hire and often exploit illegals. If livable wages and benefits are provided by a business and they still can't hire the people they need, then they can pursue getting green cards for folks.

[Demit]

7. I take exception to that being a Democratic position, that "we shouldn't

be loyal to the US" or "shouldn't respond to terror attacks" b/c of things our govt has done in the past. If someone has actually said those things to you, you are free to file them away in your head as being slightly nutty things an individual thinks. But characterizing them as being what Democrats think is just wrong.

Are you seriously expecting that an entire party would entirely agree with you on every issue? Then I suggest you form your own party, and make sure you are its only member. Then you will have a party that represents you.

Also, I would be interested in reading your party platform to see how it characterizes your ideal of a "political middle".

[FormerRepublican]

11. What DO Democrats think? Do we know? Maybe that's the root of my...

...problem here. How do I determine what views on DU are "Democratic" views, and which are views of individuals not representative of the party?

No, I don't think that total agreement is necessary. But there are a couple of issues that I disagree strongly enough about that it reduces the importance of the areas where we agree. There are also plenty of areas where I disagree that it really doesn't make much difference because I can tolerate the disagreement because it's not THAT important to me.

WRT a party platform - I actually did one here on DU a few months back. You can do a search and look it up if you're interested. Of course, the illegal immigration and national security discussions that so troubled me hadn't come up yet... I guess those are hot button issues for me.

[marions ghost]

40. Respectfully

...and I do respect that you are struggling with these issues rather than taking the easy way out and jumping on bandwagons. So here's some food for thought, sincerely meant.

I don't know how long ago you were a Republican, but one thing I see you having trouble with is living outside convenient definitions. Why do categories matter to you so much? I mean, why can't you be liberal on some things, "moderate" (which has different definitions depending on where you're coming from) on other things, and even allying with some conservative positions (tho not too many :) occasionally.

Why can't YOU be YOU, instead of feeling you have to make any one group fit your ideal? I think that the real heart of liberalism...we don't have to agree on everything, but at least we can explore and discuss. The Republican way is lock-step allegiance to The Party and Pledge to uphold the Authoritarian Way and Pay Heavy Penalties for non-conformity. Maybe what you're having trouble with is greater Freedom?

Consider that immigration and national security are not only hot-button issues for you at this point--they are hot-button issues for the whole country, regardless of political party. I don't think there is consensus in the Democratic party about what to do about these issues. Consider that the forces that continue to support illegal immigration are largely economic and that there is obviously no political will among Republicans to deal with it for that reason. Democrats aren't doing much better, but then they've been out of power. Dems at least have stood up for the rights of immigrant workers to receive benefits in this country if they are going to function as an integral part of the economy.

On national security, the Republicans have jerked the public around so much on this that nobody knows what's really going on anymore. It's a chaotic situation. We now have overwhelming Homeland INsecurity. The reaction to the Dubai ports deal illustrates that. Obviously this hot-button issue of the ports has troubled Republicans and Democrats alike. Your guess is as good as mine about where the complex question of 'national security' is going. All we can do is become as informed as possible and weigh in with our representatives. There are no easy or quick answers.

Maybe put something else in your thoughts? Like Global Warming? May prove to be a far greater issue than any others on the table.

[seabeyond]

9. there are not many immigration threads and i dont often find people

telling me i should not be loyal? to the united states. but there are other issues with demmocrats have issue, and i argue it. that is what i do. gun issue, i will fight for someones right to own gun. smokers, i will fight for their right. the left to has pet issues where they want to dictate behavior and even though i may not like it, like guns or abortion, i will fight for a persons right on it.

the middle is the majority. it is like the christian crying out that they are picked on.

anyway, there is extremism on this board, just keep that in mind. i am often surprised on children threads how many people dont like kids and dont want them in the public to bother adults. whatever

[Luminous Animal]

12. The gun thing,,,

Democrats nned to just drop it and concentrate on economic justice and the gun thing will be minimal.

Ilegal immigration is an emotional wedge issue, Capitol and Capital work overtime to concince us that we need porous borders FOR CAPITAL to flourish, My question is: if corporations don't need borders then why does labor?000

And I cannot even begin the idiotic notion of loyalty. The very FACT that those who strive and those who put their lives on th line to make this a better place through their criticism and activism, proves their loyatly. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[Skidmore]

15. As a Dem for all my adult life, and the daughter of lifelong Dems,

I can tell you that I have some of the same beliefs you expressed above, and I would readily define myself as a progressive Dem because of my positions on other issues. There are a couple issues on which I will not yield one quarter, but I'm willing to hear others out and allow them their opinions. This is at once the strength and weakness of the party itself. Someone once called it "herding cats." It's weakness is that it makes it difficult to form more than a consensus of opinion--we don't march lockstep--and sometimes gets in the way of getting the message out. It's beauty and strength is that the consensus is exactly what democracy is about, as is the right to your own opinion. Having come off of two corrupted election cycles, the party itself has had to regroup, and there is still some disagreement on the direction of the party and who its leaders should be. Don't let it worry you. You don't have to agree with me always, but where we meet in agreement, we will work all the harder. Where we disagree, we will respect each other's opinions and look for a point on which we do agree, and--you know the drill by now.

[nonconformist]

16. I don't think you disagree with all Democrats

You disagree with some, sure. I bet there are quite a few things we disagree on. But that's what makes the party so great (and occasionally, so unorganized) - we think for ourselves and have a wide variety of opinions. At the end of the day, I think most of our goals are the same however.

I'm a yellow dog born and raised dem... a proud liberal progressive. I am also against illegal immigration, and I think you will find that many others are as well.

[rman]

17. "not respond to terror attacks"?

Where the heck did you get the idea that's what Dems want? Or do you think pre-emptive war is the only possible response?

And "not loyal"? not loyal to this govt yes, but "not loyal to the US"?

You've got some heavy duty framing going on there dude.

[FormerRepublican]

21. Here's an example of some of what I'm talking about...

I did a search and tracked this down as an example:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=506951

Do I think we need to be loyal to everything our government does? No way in h*ll!! And double that!! I disagree with a LOT of what our government does.

Do I think we need to be loyal to our COUNTRY? You betcha!

Did I get the impression that not everyone on DU felt that way? Yes, I did. And I was shocked by it.

WRT the terror attack response, I'd have to spend more time tracking that one down, but I could...

[sandnsea]

22. Well you knew they were here before, right?

You did know there were people who are just not into loyalty to anything at all, didn't you? Why are you surprised by it and why does it bother you? They were here when you were a Republican too. That's what a free country, the one you're loyal to, is all about. More of them would just be people who put all the people in the world before man made boundaries, that's all. It's like being loyal to God before country, most any American would say yes to that. Some people see ALL the world, or humankind, as the equivalent of loyalty to a spirituality, or God. Really not that big of a deal.

[FormerRepublican]

23. No, it's a new one for me. I've never been around those who felt that...

way before. It doesn't bother me until it becomes political policy. The idea that it could become political policy DOES bother me.

It's not that big a deal for you, but it is for me. That's what this thread is about. There are some issues on which I disagree that cause me a great deal of angst.

Why does this one in particular cause me angst? Because I think it would make our foreign policy a nightmare, and our national security non-existant.

[sandnsea]

24. Well you can stop worrying

These are people on the far left and they'll never get anywhere near policy making, they never have. And, are you saying you didn't know they were in the country, or you never personally interacted with people with these views?

Also, I wonder who exactly you're listening to, because many of these people that you're talking about generally would tell you that Democrats "are the same" as Republicans on immigration and foreign policy and just about everything else. So that ought to help you differentiate.

[nonconformist]

25. Looks like the majority agreed with you.

I also think that people are very, understandably, angry with our country right now.

[Caretha]

29. It's all in the way you phrase a question

I have several points about your original post and this one.

Point #1

In your OP you insinuate that democrats are for illegal immigration because to do otherwise would be racist. This is incorrect. You are not very familiar with the democratic platform on immigration of any kind, legal or illegal, and I believe you are less "tuned-in" to what the majority of democrats think about illegal immigration, so I'll try to sum it up in a few short words.

We are AGAINST illegal immigration and believe that it should be enforced the only way it makes sense. If companies and corporations who hire illegals were routinely subjected to audits and very heavy fines for illegal hiring practices, they would change their policies because it would become unprofitable to pay for "cheap" labor. It is the method companies do "business" that encourages people to cross the border illegally. The illegal immigrants are exploited as much as the legal US citizens in this country because of the "blind eye" our policymakers have turned to this problem, and it all boils down to bought and paid for politicians. Republicans do not want our government to police these companies. Look at the corruption in the House right now, the vast majority are Republicans who are on the take and are bought and paid for by big business.

Point #2

I have to say addressing your point #2 seems almost senseless to me because it is so ludicrous and sounds like Republican spin. To quote you:

And the horror I feel when people say we shouldn't be loyal to the United States because of all the terrible things our government has done in the past, and we shouldn't respond to terror attacks for the same reason.

That's a pretty insane statement. You'll find a majority of democrats, their husbands, brothers, sons, wives, daughters and ancestors have all served in the military and have fought and died for their country and continue to do so today. So your point is completely a lie and invalid.

Now I will address this post. I went to your "poll post" and read it and your statement that "not everyone on DU was loyal to the US" and you were SHOCKED! seems a bit over the top to me, and the results from YOUR poll invalidates your assertion in this post.

The poll question:

If you're an American, is it OK to be loyal to America above all other nations in the world?

58% (23 votes) - YES that's normal for an American
28% (11 votes) - Depends explain your reasoning
15% (6 votes) - No we should have a global view

A Whopping 40 people voted in your poll, and out of that 34 said basically yes and out of the other 6, 5 were probably getting a kick out of tweaking your nose for a poorly written poll question.

So I'm going to help you out here and give you an analysis of your poll results. Democrats are fiercely loyal to the US and are right now appalled that the US constitution is being used like a doormat for every koolaide drinker, right wing lunatic and the "powers that be" to wipe their dirty feet on. We're ready to fight and die for your rights, Republican's rights, Green's rights, every third party's rights and non-political people's rights. But, and this is a big but, we're not ready to blindly worship a flag or a government that does not listen to the people and commits crimes around the globe in our names.

Got a problem with that?

[FormerRepublican]

49. I think Salin hit the nail on the head in the post above.

Where the problem arises is when strongly held belief meets opposing strongly held belief and the flames start to fly.

It's hard to feel like you belong to the group as a whole when people are telling you your opinions are not acceptable and calling you everything under the sun for having them. The accusations don't bother a life-long Dem, but they're much harder to refute when you're fairly new and still finding your way. IMO, it tends to drive people away from the Democratic party, which is the very opposite of what needs to happen to win elections.

And I regret the loss of reasoned political debate...

Being fairly new to the left side of the political aisle, some of the opinions expressed seem to me to be way, way, way out there on the left. And it's hard to tell how widespread those opinions are in the broader Democratic party...

Haven't you ever read opinions on DU that have caused you some unease? If you were relatively new here, could you figure out if those were Democratic opinions, or just the fringe element?

WRT the poll, well sometimes getting to know the ideas on the left can be a bit shocking to someone who hasn't been exposed to anything more than just slightly left of center. And while I respect your right to disagree, I find some of the ideas expressed on the really far left to be just as disturbing to me as the ideas expressed on the really far right. My preference is to find middle ground and leave the extremes on either side to academic debate.

[Caretha]

55. Reasoned debate & solutions

I've read all your posts on this thread and all the responses, and I'm still having a hard time understanding what your point is. In your original post you made the statement you were "struggling" with democrat's stances?, policies?, platforms?, opinions? on illegal immigration and national security, and in another one of your posts you made the statement that you were "shocked" that democrats were not loyal to the US above all other nations.

All of those points have been refuted and shown to be fallacious even by your own poll you did here on DU. Now you have moved on to generalizations about opinions and ideas that make you feel uneasy. Without specifics it is very hard to address these accusations. Whether they are valid or invalid is anyone's guess.

Is there a very far left element to the democratic party? Yes. Is there a right to left element in the democratic party? Yes. There is also a mid or moderate element too, and common sense would tell you that is where the majority lie.

If you are finding that you fit in none of those categories, and can find no common basis anywhere for your beliefs, then possibly you don't belong in the democratic party.

I was raised to think for myself and reason out complex problems and ideas. Over the course of a few decades of learning what different policies and platforms both major parties stood for, and what each implemented when they were in control, has been the basis for my decision on which party best represents me.

There was a time when the Republican and Democratic parties weren't that far apart on issues. Commonality and reasoned debate was the manner in which governmental policy was decided, but there were still wide differences. The old saying in my parent's era was that Democrats led us into war and Republicans led us into depressions. Now it appears that Republicans get credit for both and much much more.

Unfortunately the Republican party has been hijacked by a very right-wing element and reasoned debate is a thing of the past. Spin and talking points, outrageous lies and downright dirty and illegal means are used to gain and wield power. That power is being exercised in a way that is not only detrimental to the good of this country and its citizens, but to the point where our "way of life" is in danger and the world is on the brink of WW III.

This is serious business. In your OP you defined what the Republican party stands for today, so obviously you recognize the danger and are alarmed at the direction this is taking the US in, and you don't feel good about it. On the other hand you have a hard time dealing with some "opinions and ideas" in that big tent that represents the Democratic party - therefore you think you have only 2 bad choices. Time to step out of the box - you actually have a third choice and it might be the best one.

Ready? Go gather your fellow republicans that feel the same way as you, and fight to the death to wrestle control away from the radicals who have stolen your party. Clean house. Throw the corrupt politicians out and make them pay for their crimes. Make the radicals irrelevant and only a tiny tiny voice. Help steer this run-away train back on the right track. Most importantly speak up every time you see or hear lies and see crimes, and tell them "you're not going to take it anymore".

Just do something! Anything! But quit whining.

[rman]

34. Shocked that not everyone feels the same way you do?

You got to be kidding.

And you have come across _one_ post saying we should not respond to terror attacks?

I think you'r grasping at straws to make your case.

[sandnsea]

20. Not everyone on DU is a Democrat

I can't say that strongly enough. Democrats do have a plan to deal with immigration and border security, it's just not to build a wall. Earned legalization beats the hell out of Bush's guest worker program, I can tell you that for sure. Only a few believe that the terrorists are all CIA etc. You really have to sift through, or pass by, some of that stuff.

There are Democrats who would probably appeal to you, but you have to read what they actually say, go to their web sites and actually read their speeches and floor statements. You really can't base a judgement on anything except the horse's mouth these days.

[freefall]

26. Did you really mean that?

Funny. I agree with you on all the issues you mention in your first paragraph but you totally lose me when you get to national security. I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say "the horror I feel when people say we shouldn't be loyal to the United States because of all the terrible things our government has done in the past." First of all you need to separate the "government" from the "United States". And then, just who are the "people" you hear saying these things? Those I have heard pointing out the sins of the past are urging that we not repeat them. They are concerned that instead of continuing to strive toward the goals of our founding fathers, however imperfectly, we are moving away from them. What I hear from the left (not always Democrats) is true loyalty to the founding ideals of the United States. The kind of loyalty that doesn't want to see my country belie its ideals by using torture and suspending the writ of habeas corpus. And those aren't sins of the past; this government is perpetrating those acts right this minute in our names.

And PLEASE! Who on the left have you heard saying "we shouldn't respond to terror attacks"? I have been waiting for five years for the current government to start responding to terrorist attacks with anything other than bluster and ineptitude. What they have been very good at, I will admit, is hoodwinking most of the country into believing that they are doing something about security while exactly the opposite is true. While our government has wasted our national treasure on an illegal, immoral, ill-advised war, they have almost completely neglected true security. And in the process of wasting that treasure they have made the international security situation as it relates to terrorism much, much worse. Meanwhile, Democratic Senators and Representatives have been trying for years to get someone to pay attention to security here at home to no avail. As just one example, Schumer has introduced bills in the past trying to get improved security at the ports; no one listens. To my mind the best thing about this Dubai Port uproar is that it is finally focusing the attention of the public on how homeland security has received nothing but a bandaid while our government has carried on its unlawful foreign adventures. (The incursion into Afghanistan may have been justified but has been made pointless by lack of follow-through. The situation has now deteriorated to the point that Afghanistan is once again a major support to terrorists.) Frankly, I have given up on the idea that my fellow citizens will wake up to what has been done to us by our own government in time to prevent the total collapse of this United States.

:rant: :rant:

Peace

freefall

[LisaLynne]

32. Freefall, that's just what I was going to write!

It's really RW spin that the Dems are "soft on security". It's not true at all. I like to think that the Dems would not conduct all forgein "diplomacy" with bombs and guns.

ALso, I don't hear people saying that we shouldn't be loyal to the US. I think that what we as progressives are against is BLIND loyalty and also being adult about the fact that our country, no matter how much we love it, isn't always right and isn't always perfect. That's a far cry from not being loyal.

[omega minimo]

53. It doesn't hang

believably. Seems perfect to elicit an eloquent outcry like yours ( :thumbsup: ) and why? ( :thumbsdown: )

[stepnw1f]

57. Great Catch!

[Minnesota Libra]

27. I'm too liberal for the right and too conservative for the left...........

....so I find myself in a political mind field of sorts. I'm like you I believe......

Loyalty to our country is totally different than loyalty to a party and YES I'm ALWAYS loyal and very supportive of my country.....

Veterans should be the best treated and the best provided for in the entire country - they buy my freedoms with their blood and their lives...

That a strong defense starts at home....

That illegal immigration should be discouraged with all possible means and if "guest workers" don't like it they don't have to come here....

That abortion should be available but with some restrictions so it isn't used as a convenient form of birth control....

Birth control itself should be free to all....

A limited government and a fiscally conservative government is a good government......

That the three branches of government were meant to be checks and blallances for each other and that should NEVER be changed.....

That parts of the Constitution are set in stone but other parts can be ammended and added to as the needs of the people change.....

That state laws are still sacred....

That government spying on its people is a no no without a court order, no ifs ands or buts about it......

There's more of course but pray tell who and what party even comes close to agreeing with these beliefs.

[slackmaster]

31. Yeah, me too

People on both extremes fail to appreciate the beauty of my nuanced and thoughtful opinions.

[Minnesota Libra]

35. I'm just glad to hear I'm not the only one using......

....some good old common sense around here.:toast: Anway, welcome to the political mind field.

[FormerRepublican]

50. I think our political ideals are very similar.

And I do think Salin hit the nail on the head regarding what makes me feel so much angst. There is a growing polarization, and a growing intolerance for the views in the middle. It can be very frustrating.

I think I, like most people, am looking for a place where my opinions can be respected even in the midst of disagreement. I think the political debate can offer a great deal by way of solutions to difficult problems. And the only way to get to the solutions is by hashing it out back and forth until a solution comes to light. If the discussion is shut down before it ever starts, how do you get to the solutions?

[fasttense]

28. Funny, I agree with your issues but I've learned to tolerate

the sometimes rude posters who are looking for a fight.

I think illegal immigration is a very big problem and needs to be addressed. I'm glad our government is cracking down on the M-13 gangs. Their origins were our fault but like you say, we have to deal with the problem we are facing today not the ones we created yesterday.

I served in the military for 20 years. I consider myself very patriotic. I would fight to my death to protect this Nation.

I have been a life long Democratic party member. Perhaps that is why the differing opinions about immigration and patriotism do not offend me. I'm use to people not agreeing with me from within my own party. It is just how Democratic members are, they will argue with you anytime, anyplace and anywhere. I kind of like that because it allows for a full discussion of all the issues surrounding a problem.

But if you registered here on DU expecting everyone to agree with everything, well this is the wrong forum. There are long time posters here who I believe to be republican plants, there are Libertarians and Green Party members, as well as Democratic members. Sometimes they are annoying because you have to argue with them to get your ideas across. But sometimes they have great ideas and provide a perspective I've never considered.

At first I was offended because some posters would ridicule and sometimes call names like a freeper. But I've learned to ignore the insults and concentrate on the posts that are intelligent and well thought out.

Hang in there kid, there are many Democratic members who hold the same opinions about illegals and patriotism as you. Some are here on DU. But tolerance is a tough lesson to learn, and this is the only forum I've found that makes a concerted effort to minimizes the freeper like insults and name calling.

You know if someone is being really rude and insulting, ignoring them is the biggest insult you can give them.

[slackmaster]

30. I calmly point out the logical fallacies and flaws in their arguments

Declare their points invalid the moment they make ad hominem attacks, then laugh and poke fun at them.

[BooScout]

33. I don't agree a lot of times with different issues.....

If we all agreed where would the diversity be?

You are never going to find a political party or a person that agrees with all of your beliefs....that's what makes the world interesting.

No party represents all I want from the system.......but for now......the Dems are the best hope for me. Doesn't mean I am particularily happy with them. A lot of them piss me off.

[LWolf]

36. Interesting question.

Without reading any of the other responses, I'm reaching a hand out to you, to say that I, too, feel disenfranchised by the Democratic Party. I don't feel that my cares or concerns are given the weight they deserve. The elected members of the party that I feel best represent me are sometimes given some lip support, but more often denigrated, patronized, and marginalized in favor of those with more power, more strings, and less integrity. Guess what? I'm on the other end of your spectrum. I'm further left, more liberal, and more progressive than the party as a whole. Yet, we have a common concern.

I think that's the key. To find the commonalities, and work with them. That way, some steps forward can be made, even if all the areas of concern are not addressed.

I look for common ground within the party, and outside of the party as well. If we can establish a coalition of people with some common goals to achieve, we're accomplishing something. Hopefully, as the primary opposition party, the Democrats will be on board with that.

[SmokingJacket]

37. You just vote for the person who you think is best...

What else can you do?

No one, but NO ONE, agrees with their party about every last thing. We're human, not Stepford people. This "political path" you speak of -- why not just follow your own?

It's not a problem -- it's how things are.

[welshTerrier2]

38. time to reassess your views of "the left"?

you wrote: "On the other hand, there are some issues on the left that I really, REALLY struggle with. <skip> And the horror I feel when people say we shouldn't be loyal to the United States because of all the terrible things our government has done in the past, and we shouldn't respond to terror attacks for the same reason."

i'm concerned that you have biases against "the left" that may be unwarranted ...

the anti-left stereotype is that people on the left oppose protecting the country; they oppose a strong defense; they oppose responding to terror attacks against the US ... well, i consider myself part of "the left" and here are my views on these issues ...

first, the country should provide security to its citizens ... we live in a dangerous world; we should have all the security we require ... HOWEVER, bloated military budgets that do little to increase security and do nothing but pad the pockets of the military-industrial complex with wasteful spending does NOT achieve greater security ...

second, i believe many predatory US policies put our citizens at greater risk of foreign attack ... the US topples foreign governments; we blackmail weaker countries; we exploit their resources ... an imperialistic foreign policy makes American citizens far less safe ... when discussing the issue of national security, it's foolhardy not to take a hard look at our country's conduct overseas ... most on the left see a direct connection between how we conduct ourselves internationally and how secure we are ... from this perspective, i see most on the left as deeply concerned about national security ...

and finally, we come to your implication that the left would not respond to terror attacks ... i think this is very dangerous thinking and i think it's wrong ... my view is that when our country is attacked, we must respond ... HOWEVER, we have to be very careful that the response is appropriate ... invading Iraq because terrorists from Saudi Arabia attacked the US is nothing more than the administration's abuse of power ...

i think you need to reassess how you see the left ... classifying yourself as a moderate, in part because you see the left as soft on defense, may be based on false assumptions ... the left is not soft on defense; that position wouldn't make any sense ... the left sees a corrupt military-industrial complex; that doesn't mean we're not for an adequate defense ... the left sees an imperialistic foreign policy; that doesn't mean we would excuse an attack from an oppressed foreign power ... and the left sees the cost of war in terms of the lives lost; the money spent (blood and treasure); that doesn't mean we necessarily oppose war as a last resort ...

there are many policies that determine how secure we are ... perhaps taking a broader view, i.e. a view beyond just combat, would give you a deeper appreciation for how many on the left see the issue of national security ...

[Hubert Flottz]

39. I just figure the ones I STRONGLY disagree with, are...

FREEPERS of some kind and I pay little, or NO, attention to their CRAZY ASSED BULLSHIT!

[entanglement]

42. I disagree with other Dems on some issues

but that's because I find them far too right-wing for my taste! It's a really big tent :)

[proud2BlibKansan]

45. I just go spend time in The Lounge

:evilgrin:

[pitohui]

47. plenty of dems agree w. you on illegal immigration

democrats are the party of labor, it is a noisy minority that is trying to shout down discussion of controlling illegal immigration and playing the race card is a cheap way to do it

you are not a racist for not wanting your house tagged and i defy any democrat here to look you in the eye and admit they would not feel EXACTLY as you feel

there are extremist kooks in every party

common sense tells us that there must be secure borders

most democrats actually do have common sense, take some of what you hear on the internet with a large grain...

[mdmc]

51. join the club

[omega minimo]

52. You need to read/listen to Thom Hartmann

and his "Radical Middle"

[julialnyc]

54. with national security

I don't necessarily disagree with the dems, but I'm not sure where they stand (I know where some particular people stand, but I don't think they have a real "side"). I do appreciate nuance in some things, but nuance is hard for the american public to digest. I wish there was better articulation for the dems to use in many areas. Although I may understand what a democratic politician is saying I can often see the attack the opposition will have long before it comes. Republicans like to find holes in language rather than debate real issues and while I find it terribly transparent-- it does work for the Republicans.


I find the war in Iraq an absolute horror....... and I find our lack of assistance in Sudan an absolute horror as well.

[mdmc]

56. when I feel that way , I post at Du

and feel better

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

58. Don't vote for them. Don't give them money. Write them letters.

As far as the one's here on DU, engage them, or ignore them.