Texas Republican Judge thinks GOP has gone nuts, switches parties

It's almost a shame he disabled comments for the vid. I'm sure the amount of comments expressing in Aesopian fashion that they never wanted him in the first place would have been enormous. And just as pointless.

I doubt it's the start of a trend. Though I can't say I'd mind seeing more moderate Reps telling the party that they've gotta quit the fire & brimstone Bible-thumping shit when it comes to the LGBT community, come up with an alternative for the ACA that doesn't involve throwing a temper tantrum and essentially holding the American people hostage if they really do think it's the end of civilization, figure out where the fuck their heads are when it comes to illegal immigration, and realize that maybe, just maybe, this whole thing with courting the Tea Party was a political suicide pact. In addition to all the other problems that plague the party.

The problem is, I think there's a fear of coming out as a moderate or moderate liberal in this environment. It's no secret the mainline party and its media sources pretty much view the left of the right as less of the middle, and more of Stalin on bad acid.

Republicans all know they're nuts, but the Democrats won't pay for them, so they're stuck in the Republican party.

Being a somewhat righty myself and seeing how a good portion of the GOP are nimrods, I don't necessarily blame him lol

PRIMEVAL said:

Being a somewhat righty myself and seeing how a good portion of the GOP are nimrods, I don't necessarily blame him lol

I prefer moderate-republicans, that are more concerned with maintaining a balanced budget, instead of those who govern by appealing to right-wing populism. Which is why 9 times out of 10, I dislike democrats, who basically govern by appealing to left-wing populism.

Democrats left-wing? They typically aren't even considered centrist in Canada (or much the rest of the West).

Kontra Kommando said:

I prefer moderate-republicans, that are more concerned with maintaining a balanced budget, instead of those who govern by appealing to right-wing populism.

In a sane political system those would be different political parties.

That's why electoral reform is so important to me. Two party systems don't just destroy the ability of the populace to democratically participate, they distort the entire platform in which political debate takes place. Moderates get grouped with extremists and completely unrelated political viewpoints get bundled together for no real good reason. It hurts supporters of all ends of the political spectrum.

The US political system is in dire need of reform and electoral reform is probably the one thing it needs most of all.

And as Aliotroph? pointed out, the Democrats aren't even really left wing at all. So basically you have a choice between right with some social programs or farther right with batshit insane. (In fairness, I'm sure there are some batshit insane Democrats too.)

It's all relative. In American terms the Democrats are "left wing" but for me as a European both parties are to the far-right. I suspect that's largely a historical result of the Cold War, where left-wing groups in America were treated as subversives or attempts by foreign powers (ie. the USSR) to undermine the government. McCarthyism, COINTELPRO, etc. "Real" left wing politics doesn't exist in America because it was stamped out decades ago.

I know Democrats aren't truly left-wing on a world scale. But in a U.S. context, they are considered to the left. Just like conservatives in the U.S. are really conservative either; they would be considered liberals in more authoritarian countries. Granted, the terms, right-wing/left-wing are very general, and don't truly define political parties in america. The foundations of both democrats and republicans are in classical liberalism (private ownership/ free-enterprise/ inalienable rights of citizens[well, mostly for white protestant males in the beginning].) Things have changed during the course of history, for both parties. Modern Liberalism came in the 1930s when the democrats adopted Keynesian economics, social welfare, as well as making appeals of social justice for Catholics, Jews, blacks, and other minorities. By unifying these constituencies, the Democrats went from the party of the KKK, to more similar to the party we see today. The Dixecrats were on board with this paradigam shift as well. This was the only way they could break Republican domination of national politics. The Dems formed a large coalition of very different groups, in order to achieve their own goals. With democrats in office, the south enjoyed governing the south as they saw fit (i.e. segregation)The most recent evolution of the Democrats came during the 1960s, when non-southern democrats championed Civil Rights. Moreover, a large amount of southern Democrats became Republican, when Barry Goldwater championed "States-Rights"; many saw this as a code word for pro-segregation in the south. During the Republican Revolution of the Clinton years, you saw even more Southern Democrats become Republican as well. But honestly, the Dems did not champion civil rights because they cared so much about the welfare of African-Americans. Rather, because of television, and media, the United States did not want to seem hypocritical during the cold war, by championing freedom, while at the same time, allowing racial discrimination. This is ultimately the main driving force for political action against segregation. During the ideological battle of the cold war, many new states were forming in Africa and Asia. The USA and USSR, were competing for the cooperation of these emerging countries. There were cases were dignitaries would be treated terribly while visiting the United States, because they were of color. In order to repair the damage, the gov't had to change its policies.

fraggle said:

"Real" left wing politics doesn't exist in America because it was stamped out decades ago.

The closest there ever was to a truly left-wing party gaining power in the United States, was the Socialist Party in the 1920s. Eugene V. Debs was a labor activist, that ran for president, and received nearly one million votes (6% of the popular vote), while campaigning from prison. Quasi-socialist ideas were adopted by the dems mostly through Keynesian economics. Even the Republicans, from Eisenhower to before the Reagan era, agreed that social welfare had many good attributes. They only claimed they could do it better. Many socialists originally had supported FDR, because of his ideas. But later, they claimed that he had not done enough. However, the goal was not to destroy capitalism in the united states, but rather to preserve it. Further, it was done to preserve the more well establish business entities.