His party changed, so he changed his party.

So this guy is a martyr? Are you sure about that Larry?

Yeah. He stood with his party when it was supporting Trump. That lost him credibility with moderates. When he couldn't take their denialism any longer, he switched parties. That lost him credibility with right wing extremists. He's neither AOC nor Manchin. The middle in any party gets grief from both directions.

Thanks for the explanation. I'm still not sure he could be considered a martyr. Don't get me wrong, I love these martyr memes when I come across them!

You're definitely right regarding the middle in any party, at least republicans and democrat parties. Back when crazies like Pat Robertson were trying to co-opt the republican party, my opinion was they should just have the balls to form their own party, and leave the more moderate, rational republicans alone. I think the same now about the crazies on the left in the democrat party. I don't know how the more moderate, rational democrats put up with them and the fact that they are bare naked socialists attempting to co-opt the democrat party.

But they will never form their own parties, because they'd never win anything if they did that. The crazies in both parties need the sheep who will vote for the D or the R automatically, without really understanding what they're voting for.

I consider myself to be a moderate-left Democrat. That puts me right where my Parents and older Brother were on equal rights in the late 60s and early 70s. They were Republicans. And they supported easy access to birth control and abortion. The Republican Party of today resembles the Dixiecrats of 1948 more than the Party of Lincoln I was raised to respect.

I reject most of what Bernie Sanders says he stands for and I have incurred the wrath of Bernie-bots as a result.

I think we went down the wrong path when we abandoned the proven Keynesian tax system. It connected the very rich to the processes of solving social ills via tax deductions for donations to charities. Also, too many political organizations qualify as "charities." I give to charity and do good deeds, expecting nothing in return. If I do a "good deed," that benefits me in some material way, what have I "given?" Let's go back to taxing the hell out of the rich, then giving them generous write-offs and deductions for investing in the economy and the well-being of the "less fortunate." It would reduce the size of the "Welfare State." It would also give people some choice on what issues they think need the most attention.

Larry, as a moderate-left democrat, don't you feel your party actually considers you to be to the right of the midpoint, as in being a dino (dem in name only), so truly a republican like your family was back then? Democrat leadership has moved so far to the left, that if you truly are where your family was politically back in the late 60's and early 70's, current democrat ideology would label you a racist and cancel you.

I have to use it as an example, because it's just too good not to, but think about Kennedy in the early 1960's. The democrat party he as in is gone, long gone. He would be considered a white nationalist and immediately canceled for even suggesting that people do something for their country, instead of the other way around.

I don't quite see how you think current republicans resemble democrats from 1948, but I can at least respect your opinion, as you've clearly thought it through. And at least we can agree on Bernie.

I disagree that Keynes style govt spending is the way to go. (didn't he also prefer lower taxes?) I don't have a problem with govt spending on things like infrastructure, but govt has shown that it it can't spend responsibly, period. Too much pork and hard graft. Big govt has gotten us nowhere, particularly deficit spending, which I believe Keynes had no problem with, particularly when it comes to stimulating the economy. However, the irresponsibility shown by both parties in allowing us to become so far in debt is appalling. The debt is ignored and govt acts as if we have a balanced budget. For example, every time dems want to increase revenue (let's be honest, it's taxes, since the govt's main way to get money is by taking it from its citizens), it's because they have a plan to spend it, not because they want to apply that 'revenue' to paying down the debt.

I have no problem with your 'tax the hell out of them' and give them tax breaks for charitable donations and economic investment approach. What I don't like is when half of that approach is applied toward the individual. The first half. The 'tax the hell out of them' half. I don't know about you, but I work too hard at a full time job and also running a small business to feel that I should have to pay off some Harvard lawyer's student debt, or subsidize somebody who isn't willing to work as hard as I do. (sorry, I know you weren't using specifics, but this student loan debt transfer issue is most annoying to me...)