this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2023
1379 points (99.8% liked)

196

16591 readers
2658 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The disingenuous party's platform isn't really relevant. It's not a real platform and their "solidarity" is a lie, they're just republicans with a different label.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean, " It favors fiscally progressive policies[12][8][13] and a social market economy with a distributist character,[14][15] that seeks "widespread economic participation and ownership"[15] and providing a social safety net program." .... "The American Solidarity Party supports a universal healthcare system as well as an economy containing widespread distribution of productive property, in particular increased worker ownership and management of their production.[25][26][27]" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Solidarity_Party)

That doesn't sound at all Republican to me. That sounds remarkably liberal.

Now, other parts do sound very Republican. For example, "The American Solidarity Party opposes abortion, euthanasia, and capital punishment on the basis of the sanctity of human life. It views the traditional, heterosexual family as being central to society.[13]" With the exception of capital punishment, that sounds very republican.

But my main point was that a person or party can be left in some areas, and right in others, which those positions seem to be. Simply saying "that's not what they really believe" seems like a cop out to me. How are you every supposed to have a discussion if that's your response?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I'm not sure why you think quoting their platform has any meaning whatsoever as a reply to me.

While your point may be valid in general, this example is counter to it. Find a real example or don't use one at all next time if you want to have a discussion.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I'm quoting Wikipedia which has sources for the claims I made.

But besides that, it seems like the most logical 2ay to talk about what a group believes is to look at what they say about what they believe. That is read their platform.

If you think they are describing their own platform I'm bad faith, I think it's on you to demonstrate that.

I would be interested in you demonstrating that to me. It would certainly affect my opinion of them if you did so.