Political Ideology

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

It promotes jealousy in relationships from my perspective

You can peddle this narrative all you want but it doesn't make it any more true.

 

Trump winning doesn't validate literally everything you ever thought, Winter. You were wrong about everything up until him getting elected and you still continue to be wrong about why he was actually elected.

So if the dems get clobbered in 2018, will I be right then?

 

Here's another prediction for you. Tim Kaine will lose in 2018 and Virginia will have both a republican gov and senator

 

You can say that I wasn't validated, but my guy won despite all odds based on the message people like me are pushing about the

neo-liberals.

 

Both your radical and "moderate" champions were given humiliating defeats Jesse. Baltimore doesn't reflect the US

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

And if they believe promoting Homosexuality is sinful?

 

I'd wholeheartedly agree and bake the cake. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I'd wholeheartedly agree and bake the cake. 

I walked right into that one with you didn't I Polaris hehe

 

I imagine some people as strongly about SSM as I do about abortion. If I was a cab driver I probably wouldn't drive someone to an abortion clinic. I disagree with people's views on SSM, but I'm more disappointed with vindictive liberals who want to destroy lives because they couldn't get a cake

 

Forget probably, I would 100% drop her on the street and tell her to find someone else to help her commit murder

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

I'd wholeheartedly agree and bake the cake. 

"And this chocolate cake is sinfully delicious" *looks at camera and winks*

 

....Anyway. I think that you're going a bit too far Jesse. He's not wrong about everything because many of the things he says is "just, like, his opinion, man". Plus there are some things with actual facts.

Granted it'd be nice if everyone took a step back and think about which is personal preference and which is fact.

[Aerion Brightflame]

Political defeat doesn't invalidate our personal viewpoints. It might mean difficulty if any of us ran for office, but that's unlikely. The only thing that should inavlidate them is as strong objective argument that causes one to question the foundations of ones belief.

 

Because simply voting Trump or Hillary doesn't mean our views fall uniform with them, as you well know. Because of the lack of choice means a lot of viewpoints don't get full representation so we have to make do with what little we can.

 

It's fairly petty to go - My side won, so we are right and your views are invalid. There are people here who would do that if situations are reveresed but it will still be terrible. Because we should be seeking to consoldate and negotiate viewpoints, not invalidate them.

 

You can take it as a victory, but taking it as an excuse to go 'Nah you guys are wrong' is the wrong thing to take from this. Because the wills and viewpoints of nearly half the voting (Or more than half given the way the popular vote currently stands) of the voting public shouldn't be invalidate so easily. (And it's always going to be part of the issue with a two party system)>

 

In short; Stop making this about identity politics on both sides.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

No, not half. Hillary will not get a majority of the American vote even by the most generous popular vote predictions. And Gary stole a lot more from Trump than Stein did from Hillary.

 

It's always so funny that people are like if Hillary has 26% of Stein's votes in MI she would have won MI, yeh, well if Trump has 26% of Gary's vote he would have clobbered her even harder 

 

The bathroom politics beloved to the left, just isn't important to the US public Tom, you can keep doubling down on it, but the most progressive Platform ever just got it's ass handed to it 

[Sunshine Jesse]

It promotes jealousy in relationships from my perspective

 

So if the dems get clobbered in 2018, will I be right then?

 

Here's another prediction for you. Tim Kaine will lose in 2018 and Virginia will have both a republican gov and senator

 

You can say that I wasn't validated, but my guy won despite all odds based on the message people like me are pushing about the

neo-liberals.

 

Both your radical and "moderate" champions were given humiliating defeats Jesse. Baltimore doesn't reflect the US

f*** off with that "Baltimore doesn't reflect the US" thing you keep doing. That has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm saying. Just because we're a vastly more successful state than most and we happen to be left-leaning doesn't mean I'm wrong. I see and experience more sides of American culture than you could ever hope to.

 

You can say that about California, New York, or Texas, but you can't say that about Maryland.

 

I don't live in a god damn bubble. You know nothing about my state. Stop f***ing acting like it.

 

The fact that you could so easily dismiss me based on the political affiliation of where I live speaks volumes.

[Aerion Brightflame]

No, not half. Hillary will not get a majority of the American vote even by the most generous popular vote predictions. And Gary stole a lot more from Trump than Stein did from Hillary.

 

It's always so funny that people are like if Hillary has 26% of Stein's votes in MI she would have won MI, yeh, well if Trump has 26% of Gary's vote he would have clobbered her even harder 

 

Oh who the f*** cares if it's 45% or 50%, or 40% or whatever number the vote actually ended up being?

 

Stop arguing semantics. It's irrelevant to the point I was trying to make.

 

The margins of victory in elections like this are almost always too small to ever justifying go 'Well f*** your viewpoints, you get no say in the matters till the next election'. You don't become suddenly wrong by virtue of a defeat when it comes to politcs because democracy is about finding a way to govern the will of the people as a whole. Ignoring half of the peoples say because of this singular vote, and using this vote to tell them to f*** off is not how politics should work.

 

I would have thought, as someone who has gone on and on and on about how you've been oppressed by the left you'd agree to the idea that we should still have a say, that our viewpoints are valid, and that yours should not become as absolute as you proclaimed the left was.

 

So stop trying to break it all down to identity politics again and again. Because identity politics is bollocks, because state politics should not be about victory, it's about governing.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

The bathroom politics beloved to the left, just isn't important to the US public Tom, you can keep doubling down on it, but the most progressive Platform ever just got it's ass handed to it 

Why do you keep saying this? You're the one who keeps bringing up this topic over and over.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

The fact that few of the people here ever considered 2x Obama => Trump voters makes me not believe that claim Jesse 

Why do you keep saying this? You're the one who keeps bringing up this topic over and over.

Because Hillary (and Sanders) loved the talking point that their platform was the most "progressive" one ever made, and the GOP one was the most regressive ever. People don't care about that type of politics? Don't you think that means something cowcow?

 

 

Oh who the f*** cares if it's 45% or 50%, or 40% or whatever number the vote actually ended up being?

 

Stop arguing semantics. It's irrelevant to the point I was trying to make.

 

The margins of victory in elections like this are almost always too small to ever justifying go 'Well f*** your viewpoints, you get no say in the matters till the next election'. You don't become suddenly wrong by virtue of a defeat when it comes to politcs because democracy is about finding a way to govern the will of the people as a whole. Ignoring half of the peoples say because of this singular vote, and using this vote to tell them to f*** off is not how politics should work.

 

I would have thought, as someone who has gone on and on and on about how you've been oppressed by the left you'd agree to the idea that we should still have a say, that our viewpoints are valid, and that yours should not become as absolute as you proclaimed the left was.

 

So stop trying to break it all down to identity politics again and again. Because identity politics is bollocks, because state politics should not be about victory, it's about governing.

The electoral vote wasn't close, those neo-liberal views are increasingly being consigned to the coasts. Of course, you're entitled to your opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts. The allure of a progressive agenda did not resonate with the heartland. It did on the west coast, but outside of that it's a losing bet

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

I mean that's part of what discrimination is, isn't it?

[Sunshine Jesse]

The fact that few of the people here ever considered 2x Obama => Trump voters makes me not believe that claim Jesse 

That has nothing to do at all with what I'm saying you troglodyte.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I mean that's part of what discrimination is, isn't it?

The neo-liberals threw these buzzwords on everyone who doesn't fully embrace their views. Not just GOP, not just people like Romney. There was neo-liberals who attacked JK funking Rowling because she said Sirius wasn't gay.

 

Please double down on that type of politics, nothing could make me happier because it's the best way to make the neo-liberals irrelevant. But it's not a winning bet. Neo-Liberalism has been losing elections for a while. If the GOP had ran a non-cheesecake in 2012 for president, even the WH might have fallen

That has nothing to do at all with what I'm saying you troglodyte.

I'm saying you're in a bubble because you made it sound like Ex-Dems who hate neo-liberalism was limited to a few in closet "conservatives" like me

 

We weren't. The fact you couldn't see the world outside of you, is the definition of a bubble 

[Sunshine Jesse]

The electoral vote wasn't close, those neo-liberal views are increasingly being consigned to the coasts. Of course, you're entitled to your opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts. The allure of a progressive agenda did not resonate with the heartland. It did on the west coast, but outside of that it's a losing bet

Trump won because people in the 'heartland' were harmed by trade deals.

 

He campaigned on rewriting or ripping up those trade deals.

 

That's it. That's all there is to it.

 

He directly addressed the things that were hurting them the most.

 

Hillary made no attempt at doing so. Both Bernie and Trump did. That's why they won, except Bernie didn't win where else it counted.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Trump won because people in the 'heartland' were harmed by trade deals.

 

He campaigned on rewriting or ripping up those trade deals.

 

That's it. That's all there is to it.

 

He directly addressed the things that were hurting them the most.

 

Hillary made no attempt at doing so. Both Bernie and Trump did. That's why they won, except Bernie didn't win where else it counted.

Trump won because the left cares more about where Mrs. Jenner pisses than the fact that we're dying of drug overdoses while making less and working harder than we were 20 years ago

 

If the neo-liberals cared as much for us as they do for Islamist Refugees, Illegals, the Socialists, and neo-sexual minorities, they wouldn't have lost

 

And if you wanna doubt the socialist thing, Trump won the majority of Cuban Hispanics, IMPROVING on Romney and McCain's numbers. For all the talk of him being a racist hater the Obama fondness of the Castros and embrace of socialist ideas was more damning

 

Edit: It's not just in the US either. All over the world Putinites are winning the election with an express message of opposing Neo-liberalism. 

[Aerion Brightflame]

The electoral vote wasn't close, those neo-liberal views are increasingly being consigned to the coasts. Of course, you're entitled to your opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts. The allure of a progressive agenda did not resonate with the heartland. It did on the west coast, but outside of that it's a losing bet

 

And again; what does it matter what the specific values are compared to the principle?

 

You talk about 'we aren't entitled to our own facts', which is true. No one side should be able to dictate absolute truth without purely objective metrics to do so, and as is often the case in politics these objective metrics don't exist, so one can only hope to draw a conclusion based in the facts and arguments that hold most sway over you.

 

But you are the one constantly going 'You guys cared so much about bathroom laws' and how that this kind of overblowing of the situation by a vocal minority (Like the racists and such you disown on your side), meant that the 'most progressive platform' lost. And that that is the only factor as to why Trump won and Hillary lost. Isn't that defining your own facts? You ignore the complexity of the issue and blow it down to being something you can demonise the left over such that you never need to have a real debate about.

 

You never feel the need to say why these liberal ideas are wrong in an objective measure, because you turn the idea of being a 'liberal' into a dirty word by your usage of it. Just as Nazi and racist get thrown around, you have tried to do the same here. By making liberal a dirty word, you short the need to actual argue the point.

 

Why is the only reason that both platforms lost because they were progressive? Can it not just be coincidental? Can it not be that many were tired of the status quo and corruption Clinton represented? Can it not be as Jessie says, Trump having the right plaform for the right areas? Or the influence of the DNC corruption stories that came out?

 

Why is the victory's cause only what you've said it is? Because you feel it so? Because you have the evidence supporting it? Because it fits in with your narrative?

 

It's a complex issue, but you seem to insist on boiling down into somethin simple where you can say 'I'm right, you are wrong'. You should know that the correct response is not to belittle and attempt to invalidate a given world view, because that casuses resentment and resurgance as we have seen in the rejection of neoliberalism (Which is not actually something most of us here agree with. A form of left leaning politics yes, but not neoliberalism. Because most of us agree Neoliberalism has been f***ing awful finacially since Thatcher and through to Blair. It's a specific type of financial liberalism, not the modern 'PC movement'. Neoliberalism predates that). Why now are you so keen to jump to doing it to the other side instead of trying to bridge the gap?

 

EDIT: I know this is a fairly directed argument, but there's a kind of disonance at work here I want to try and work past.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

First of all, I would like to thank you, cause that's actually the kinda discussion I would like to have

 

It's not a vocal minoirty Tom, Trump bucked the GOP and supported the Trans rights to go to w/e bathroom they wanted. And he didn't get a single shred of credit from the left. He had nothing to gain from doing so while in an embittered primary against a social conservative Cruz. None. Where was the left majoirty then?

 

I should amend my statement that bathroom laws were the only thing that caused HRC to lose (did I ever expressly say that? If so it's wrong). But the progressive agenda in general isn't geared towards to heartland as it is to the coasts and urban centers. Some of sander's messages did resonate. Trade ideas that President Elect Trump was running on at that point. But others, such as further embrace of PC culture did not. Trump won not only on issues where he and Sen. Sanders shared views, but also on those that they had grave opposion on. 

 

DWS might have given HRC Cali, and maybe 1-2 other states narrowly, but she didn't completely steal the election from Sanders. People didn't like sanders as much as they did HRC. Now you might site early polls that showed Sanders beating Trump...but remeber those same polls showed HRC beating Trump too. 

 

The majoirty of Ameria thinks PC culture is detrimental 

 

People are suffering Tom, due to Illegal Immigration, due to Islamic pandering, due to shitty trade deals, due to Drugs, due to Crime, due to fear. You cannot handwave those away by pointing out that you're more likely to die from a shark attack than a Jihadist. 

 

The response here is not to say, "Oh, so you don't like facts, bye felicia" 

 

The majority of Americans don't support Abortion...so where the idea did the dems get the idea to go even deeper on supporting it? They've misread their own base.

 

Have I really jumped to the other side though Tom? If this same Trump had ran as a democrat, I would just have as happily voted for him. I jumped to a NEW side. I reject Kasich style and Cruz Style GOP just as much as I do Bernie styled Dems. 

 

The dems are no longer the party of the middle class, neither is the GOP, but the GOP has a better chance of becoming one if they follow Mr. Trump

 

The climate change thing is such a great example, you're telling the heartland, funk your bills, funk your jobs, our models think the world is funked. So you're gonna pay an extra two dollars for each gallon and find a new occupation.

 

I don't think people fully understand how condescending that looks, and how economically that hurts. We matter damnit, and I think the left realizes that. Iowa didn't matter to the dems this year. Who cares if they're losing by 8 in a state Obama won by 8. It's just 6 electoral votes. That arrogance is why nobody saw the midwest follow Iowa to the red. And I see no attempt at reconciliation from the left

 

Their front runner for DNC head is a jew hating PC muslim...smh

 

Edit:

 

I used to be proud to be a liberal Tom, that's not a true statement anymore. And the type of treatment dissent gets on college campuses and liberal households is a good reason for that. 

 

When my parents found out that my sister and I had moved from being for Hillary to Trump, the first response was "but he hates brown people"

 

second was "he's a racist/homophobe/sexist/etc"

 

Third was "you're a hopeless racist/homophobe/sexist/etc, there's not enough like y'all to win him the election thankfully"

 

Not much of an attempt to understand the other side coming from the left (this again does not excuse the right, they're just as bad in some regards)

[VCR_CAT]

It feels to me like there's so many problems rooted with the whole "us vs. them" mentality that's so prevalent in western culture. For Winter, I read "I used to be proud to be a Liberal", and I need to ask: Why do you need to be a Liberal? Why do you need to be a Republican?

 

There's so much misunderstanding going on between both sides because people insist that there needs to be sides at all. I understand why there are different parties to be running for the biggest position, but I don't understand why people need to invest their identities in these parties at all. I've written poetry on this issue because it's so obvious but nobody wants to really address:

 

Nobody's listening to each other.

 

There's legitimate concerns on both sides that are there for reasons; some rational, some not. There are people speaking up for Islam because there's a legitimate concern for those people in the US and how they may be treated looking into this election. It's not a matter of wanting to give them more privileges, it's a matter of standing up for their first amendment right for their freedom of religion in face of a new leader that has repeatedly said some very concerning things regarding their well being. And for the right, there are lots of small towns in the middle of the US that don't have the population of the big cities; small towns with different cultures and concerns than that of the big cities, and their voices have hardly been listened to over the years, and many of these towns are suffering in many ways because of this.

 

The issues go on, and there's good reasons for all of this, but hardly anyone is actually  listening to each other. Most people just want to hear something that agrees with their preconceived notions or hear some famous dude say those immigrants better gtfo before they're willing to listen to the other side and make a compromise. There's constant narratives of "those baby-skinned libtards" and "those uneducated racist republicans" that get screamed out before anyone even gets close to saying "Hold on a minute, let's hear them out a bit more."

 

My biggest issue with Trump is that silly absolution in his statements and proposed solutions, that the ~only~ way to deal with immigrants is to have a police task force break down their door and drag them out of the country; that the ~only~ way to deal with instability in the middle east is to just send more bombs. There's no dialogue about any of these issues.

 

Maybe if both sides actually listened to each other more, we'd realize that there's merit to allowing abortion in certain cases, such as medical cases where human lives are at stake or even rape-related ones, while still supporting adoption networks and making information of alternatives more available. Maybe the solution to illegal immigrants is to actually give them a chance to become real, documented citizens and welcome them in instead of tossing them out. Who knows, but nobody is going to find the best solution to any situation by shutting their ears and discounting half the country simply for their views.

 

People need to stop placing their identities in parties, and "party loyalty" is an awful mindset to spread through a country. Not only do parties and their policies change with each candidate and their given cabinets, which makes having loyalty towards something that isn't even set in its ways kind of moot, but it only further encourages a huge divide between peoples and we reach a point where an election is more about which half of the population gets to gloat about winning something that really shouldn't be treated as a contest and which half gets to be swept under the rug.

 

Honestly, if anything, please listen to the other side and really give them a serious consideration. I've said it before and I still strongly advocate for minority governments (Because the ruling party is actually forced to listen to the other parties and make these compromises I'm talking about), but at the very least stop spinning the narratives of the stereotypes and the "us vs. them" narrative. Nothing worth getting done is going to get done while people continue to drive themselves apart like this.
 

[Aerion Brightflame]

VCR basically sums up what I've been trying to get at;

 

Even if progressive values say didn't win the election, and the majority of the people don't support them, that doesn't invalidate them or render them without merit. If the ideas had no basis in grounded reality, and no merits people wouldn't support them. Why do these views not deserve consideration?

 

The same is true of the hyper conservative values, of centre-line values of socialist arguments, of authoritism, of Libertarianism say. There are legitimate arguments for all of these things, they have merits worth considering in a given solution.

 

And a lot of the time, people seem to care about the win, about being right more than doing there jobs that they don't seek compromise or don't offer compromise.It's how you create a lot of anger, of resentment. How long say, if the politics shifts towards the middle states to the exclusion of all else, before the costal states get pissed, and want to be heard and considered?

 

It is, admittedly something that's kinda unique to US politics given how gigantic it is, and it's a definite argument for the lack of federal involvement in a lot of situations. But there's no reason why you can't seek to build compromise that satisfies both the coasts and the middle states.

 

It's the lack of willingness to listen, to debate, to really consider arguments from other sides that does this. And it feels like at times, you get caught up in party politics, caught up in being 'the winner' rather than trying to build to effective solutions in these discussions. Even if we can't achieve compromise, we can at least see eye to eye if one steps back a little. And it's behavoir to encourage, because it will lead to a more legitimately tolerant society, not one of forced tolerance.

 

VCR basically summed everything up more succinctly than I managed. It's an issue of a mentality that gets way too prevelant here, and it's dumb because you would have people supporting an idea if there wasn't merit to it. We should be able to identify that merit even if we can't agree to it.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I'd like to agree with VCR, with the small preface about his first question.

 

I used to be proud of being liberal, because I felt it was advancing the country as a whole, it used to stand for a worker's party and one reluctant to jump into every war ever. With the further embrace of neo-conservatism as well as social justice, that's not longer true. The democrats of the last 4 years feels like the party of whiney children. That's why I used to be proud, but am no longer of being associated with the party of "libearls"

 

I am not a Republican, and I doubt I ever will be, unless Trump clones start taking over the party. I was a former Democrat, turned left leaning independent who voted GOP down ballot this time in hopes that President Elect Trump's agenda would be seen through. Made no difference. Incumbent GOP senator won by like 20 pts. Incumbent Dem Rep won by about 4%

 

I'm not afraid to go across party lines to vote for whom I believe in

 

I would be very happy to work with people like Jesse and Sen. Sanders to work on issues like our failing infrastructure and inner city crime, evenwhile opposing ever larger attempts to free up abortion and further forays into neo-sexuality 

 

I do want to find common ground, because what the GOP did to President Obama was a detriment to the US as a whole

[VCR_CAT]

I'd like to agree with VCR, with the small preface about his first question.

 

I used to be proud of being liberal, because I felt it was advancing the country as a whole, it used to stand for a worker's party and one reluctant to jump into every war ever. With the further embrace of neo-conservatism as well as social justice, that's not longer true. The democrats of the last 4 years feels like the party of whiney children. That's why I used to be proud, but am no longer of being associated with the party of "libearls"

 

I am not a Republican, and I doubt I ever will be, unless Trump clones start taking over the party. I was a former Democrat, turned left leaning independent who voted GOP down ballot this time in hopes that President Elect Trump's agenda would be seen through. Made no difference. Incumbent GOP senator won by like 20 pts. Incumbent Dem Rep won by about 4%

 

I'm not afraid to go across party lines to vote for whom I believe in

 

That's good that you're willing to cross lines, because it means you're willing to listen to alternatives; I just think that the whole "proud to be ______" is where my question comes up. I don't consider myself anything in regards to political alignment, and I wouldn't even say I'm proud to be anything. Every party is with its faults, and even though I voted Trudeau I neither wanted a majority government nor do I support everything he's doing. He wasn't the best option, but he was the option I picked in the face of worse ones.

 

I'm starting to ramble, but I think you get the idea. Parties change over the years and it's more important to look at policies and issues than it is to just jump in favor because of loyalties or where one places their identity.

[Aerion Brightflame]

And that's a good thing.

 

We are taking issue with the entire idea of 'voting down party lines' in the first place. It should exist, you shouldn't hold loyalty to a political party beyond rational reason. You should always vote for the candidate you feel is the best, be that the one who allies closest to your views, the one you dislike the least, or the one who you feel is most suitable, whatever critera you deicde upon.

 

It's the issue of always voting down party line without considering the specific details of the party line you are voting on. Of never considering the arguments at hand, and weighing the merits. Or the issue of being so convinced of a certain viewpoint one fails to consider the merits of the opposing arguments.

 

Essentially, ignorance. The issue is the ignorance that party politics can inspire. I would rather see people move away from 'pride' in a given viewpoint because pride makes objectivity hard.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

GOP Senator has been good to my family for a long time, even my very left parents voted for him

 

GOP Rep was a supporter of Same Sex Marriage, and pretty much Trump - hard line on immigration, it's not like I voted for a Ted Cruz type. He was basically a libertarian, shame he lost, but my home county is like LA levels of blue, so I'm just happy he did as well as he did vs a long time incumbent 

 

I agree straight ticket voting shouldn't exist. People don't look at the issues. I looked up the verdicts of each judge I had to vote for recalling on because I really care about abortion and SSM, I doubt many others did. I also left some races blank when no candidate acted in a way I could support. Pointless you might say, but I felt it was the right thing to do

 

In case you were wondering: Both Dems and the Republican were pro-common core for the school board, so I left that blank for example. There was no "lesser" evil for me there

 

Edit: Apparently LA has gotten more liberal than I thought according to these online tools, my home city is the same value of liberal as NYC, but less than LA...basically still Blue beyond belief 

[a bad post]

The problem is Winter is for all the problems you see in the left you refuse to acknowledge whenever any of us point out problems in the right. You always fall back on how "awful" PC culture is and talk about how aggressive and intolerant liberals are while refusing to see that these some of these same issues exist within the right. Much of your argument relies on logical fallacies and basically assuming anybody who disagrees is a neo-liberal crazy, and then use a mocking tone whenever replying. That's why you get such a negative response. I am perfectly willing to vote for a Republican if I feel that that person aligns with my values.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

The problem is Winter is for all the problems you see in the left you refuse to acknowledge whenever any of us point out problems with Trump. You always fall back on how "awful" PC culture is and talk about how aggressive and intolerant liberals are while refusing to see that these some of these same issues exist within the right. Much of your argument relies on logical fallacies and basically assuming anybody who disagrees is a neo-liberal crazy, and then use a mocking tone whenever replying. That's why you get such a negative response. I am perfectly willing to vote for a Republican if I feel that that person aligns with my values.

I feel like the bolded might be more accurate

 

I 100% agree. Before Trump, the GOP was worse than the Dems. 

 

But yeah, I do come off as more mocking than I probs should, I'll work in that bit