Does anyone have trouble figuring out which party actually represents them these days?

Nope. As someone who cares about creating a more prosperous country that participates in the global economy, provides opportunity for everyone, and ensures that those less fortunate have the means to get back on their feet, I’m very comfortable as a Democrat.

They’re not perfect, but they at least care about making our country better.

There are like 10 people going around talking about the idea in the first place. It’s getting lots of attention because Trump can make it sound like the Democrats are in favor of lawlessness.

I don’t know what the actual policy is because the advocates haven’t really translated their slogan into policy. But like I said, there are 10 of them, and they’re not going to get anywhere until they do.

Maybe the slogan means we should have two groups: one that fights trans-national crime, human trafficking, child porn, etc. and another that seeks to deport immigrants in the country illegally. If so, that seems like a reasonable suggestion because then the first agency can interact with the public without them fearing they’ll be deported. And we can devote resources to whichever of those problems we think is more important. I believe the first set of problems is more of an enforcement priority, as do most Democrats I would venture. Doesn’t mean you ignore the second one though. But since most immigration hardliners talk about M13 and related problems as the motivation for their views, why not directly attack those issues?

Ah yes, the “trump voters only voted for him because the liberals were mean” argument that isn’t based in any sort of empirical fact. Good one.

This is funny in sad kinda way. OP comes here expressing doubts about what part he belongs to. The Left immediately begin to berate him for some of his basic beliefs.

They have moved so far left that they ridicule someone who is open to change.

The Left is no longer about inclusion and tolerance. It is all about equality now. Not ensuring equality of opportunity, which is highly admirable, but equality of outcome.

And equality of outcome is far more dangerous to society than anything the idiotic nonsense the Far Right spews.

I would agree with ZS1.

As an FYI: “Abolish ICE” <> “unlimited immigration” or “undefended borders.” ICE doesn’t even patrol the borders (that’s CBP).

“Abolish ICE” can mean a lot of things — the actual policy that would get implemented if Democrats were in power would be pretty moderate.

I think the Dem approach is that internal enforcement is a priority but not the top priority. So if someone is otherwise not committing a crime, they’re at risk for deportation but we don’t need a “deportation force” to aggressively hunt them down either. Spending that money on other law enforcement priorities — some related to immigration and some related to other issues like counter terrorism — is much more important.

I mean Dems haven’t been known to be free traders until trump started getting al protectionist. And the whole movement on open borders is quite frankly frightening (would push on what folks actually believe there beyond “don’t separate kids”). And yeah I do believe the progressive left is just as extreme as the right. It’s an opinion thing not something where someone can be “mistaken”.

I don’t think anyone belittled the OP...

EY with that A+ persecution complex. Bravo 👏

EY1, I think the Dem view is that most of those proposals are aimed an getting better equality of opportunity. Easier access to quality education is one of the quickest ways to equalize opportunity.

Healthcare is a much more complex topic, so let’s put that aside for the moment.

Living wage isn’t really about ensuring equality of outcomes as people making it are still well below average income-wise. Minimum wages have always been about establishing some minimum below which we say it’s unfair for businesses to take further advantage of an excess in labor supply relative to demand. A living wage policy says that we should set that minimum at a level at which a person could actually sustain themselves by working full time. By the way, I’m not sure I’m fully bought in on the idea — neither was Hillary by the way, though she agreed to some version of it due to pressure from Bernie.

I’m not sure if your reference to “social security” means the actual Social Security Administration programs or some broader set of programs (unclear because you didn’t capitalize and the term can mean more things in that case). But I’ll assume just SSA for now. I think Dems are for retaining current benefits, perhaps a modest increase, but not a huge expansion. To be clear this means a tax increase at some point in order to retain current benefits, but that’s not exactly an “expansion.” Social Security is an earned benefit insurance program that basically says, “If you work your entire adult life, we’ll force you to save an amount that will be conservatively invested and backstopped by the Federal government — or really taxpayers — to ensure you’ll have a minimum level of retirement income to keep you out of poverty.” We think that’s a fundamentally fair bargain. And we believe Republican ideas of cutting benefits by raising the retirement age aren’t fair because it says people need to work until they’re e.g. 70 in a what are sometimes physically demanding jobs. My mom just turned 70 and there’s no way she could even work a checkout counter at this point.

Regarding “wealth redistribution,” I’m not sure which policy this refers to. Certainly no serious Dem official is talking about confiscating assets enmasse and giving them to everyone equally. However certainly we believe in a progressive tax system. But without knowing which policy you’re talking about, it’s hard to engage further

I honestly don't think either party represents anyone nowadays. They only believe in saying whatever it takes to get reelected.

People clutching their pearls at "Abolish ICE" sure never seemed to speak up about the GOPs abolish the IRS nonsense. ICE is also only 15 yrs old and is basically INS given more power during the time we were passing bills like the Patriot act.

Also, no Dem is against giving CBP more funding. It's a much better invest than a dang wall. There's also not a real immigration problem. Our birthrate is currently slower than deaths in America and were near full employment. There are literally fruits rotting in fields in CA because there's not enough people to pick them.

EY1, on your equality of opportunity vs outcome point: I think the left views inequality of outcomes as a prima facia, but rebuttable, case for inequality of opportunity. When there are huge disparities along racial/gender/etc lines with no plausible explanation on the basis of merit or effort or other unbiased factors, we see that as evidence that the opportunity maybe wasn’t really there at all, even if there appear to be race/gender/etc-neutral policies at play.

Regarding Bernie, I read the page you posted. All he’s saying is that we should increase taxes to pay for Social Security benefits at currently-promised levels. I would broadly agree with that statement, and it doesn’t sound like an expansion to me. But there are elements of his plan that aren’t precisely specified, so maybe there are some subtle disagreements in there somewhere.

Also, Bernie failed to win the Democratic nomination largely because he was too extreme on some policies. So while I think this policy recommendation is broadly fine, I think you’ll find that he’s to the left of the median Democrat, and therefore shouldn’t be cited as the spokesman for all Democrats

So EY1 went a bit off the rails but let's try to gets this back on track. Both Dems and GOP that our health system is not working and that unhealthy people are under productive. So how do we remedy this so that people have the same opportunity to be the best that they can be. Dems look at the rest of the world that has a power healthcare cost and a public that is generally more healthy. The rest of the world treats healthcare no different that police or fire fighter services, you may never have to use it but you know it makes the society better when everyone can have access to that service when needed. Now the GOP says... if you get sick, that's too bad.

As for minimum wage, this a sunk cost that we as a society will pay either way. Either we raise the minimum wage or we pay more taxes for thing like food stamps and welfare. No matter what, people need shelter and they need food. Especially the kids, hungry and unsheltered kids dont make good students and thus never have that opportunity to be what ever they could. Now the GOP says, not my problem if you work 50hrs a week and can barely buy yourself meal, tough luck.

As for the tax code, you're right, it is a wealth redistribution...to the most wealthy. That's why the top 1% of earners will be getting 80% of the benefit from the deficit caused tax reform. Then everyone else will have to pay to make up the deficit by cuts services like SS, Medicaid, education etc. The Dems say, you know what, it would be nice if grandparents didnt have to live in abject poverty like they did pre 1940s. The GOP says, hey grandma I know you've been working 40 hrs a week for 45 years on crap wages and not able to save anything. Plus you've been paying into SS that whole time but I got some bad news. We have to cut back SS because my rich friend Bob really needed to lower his effective tax rate.

Now we're back on track on those small differences between Dems and the GOP.

I think the idea of a political party representing a person is deeply flawed. Political parties are alliances between powerful people to exert change on the country they rule.

In theory as an educated citizen you are supposed to learn about candidates on each side and select those that will balance out each party closer to your views.

The problem when we start thinking is them vs us that we move to this tribalistic world we live in today.

I personally like a lot of the policies of the far left, and being a minority means that I cannot support the far right. But when it comes to the economy I believe in free trade and free movement of people (as far as security allows).

I believe in small government who's only goal is to protect the people, the environment, and to provide equal opportunity and an economic safety net for individuals.

For the most part I vote democrat but there are some republicans who will occasionally get my vote.

D1, lol no. Shareholders and corporate owners do. Trust me, I work in federal services. Plus I am a vet. All those subsidies and contract are ridiculously profitable for the owners and shareholders. The whole creating jobs is an excuse to keep them coming.

Believe in gay rights and moderate on abortion (legal but some hurdles and rare occurrence is fine). Free trade, moderate welfare state, strong immigration enforcement, and low taxes, and support for military. Don’t think that this set is too far off from most people but honestly can’t figure out who represents that. Used to consider myself a moderate republican but feeling a bit out of place there and think Dems are going off the deep end as well with the whole resist thing (really! Abolish ICE?). Where do y’all actually fit?!