Keep our focus on working class issues, e.g. support for unions, job creation through industrial policy. Biden actually has done a pretty good job on this, but people don’t give us credit — T Clark

You know how I think the Democrats could have won this election? If they had nominated an old-style National Review-type Republican in the tradition of George H. Bush, Eisenhower, David Brooks, George Will , Charles Krauthammer, Liz Cheney and David Frum (strong on national defense, supportive of an anti-Russia policy, economically libertarian and socially moderate). Progressives would have held their noses and voted for such a candidate over Trump, while enough potential Trump voters would have changed sides to put the Democrats over the top. But that could never happen , for a few reasons. First, the party would never support an old line conservative. Second, and most important: what the large densely-populated urban centers (which is where most democrats are concentrated) need is very different from what rural voters and social conservatives need. 70% of economic productivity and wealth generation is located in Democrat-dominated urban centers, and Democrat views on everything from energy policy to healthcare and education are direct expressions of their understanding of what it takes to make that economic engine thrive.

Trump supporters know exactly how to make an economy of the 1950’s thrive, but that’s a recipe for failure in the 21st century. The urban dwellers are speaking a foreign language to the ears of Trump supporters, not just on social issues but also economic ones, so we progressives can’t expect the majority of the country who supports Trump, and a return to the economic thinking of a previous century, to fork over their money to support our causes. We need to find a way to use our own plentiful resources to further our way of life in the cities, which will only pull us father away from traditional America but is necessary for us to thrive on our own terms. The Democratic coalition between intellectuals and blue collar workers which was successful for 50 years worked because the great majority of people in both the cities and small towns were less educated workers. That coalition can’t be put back together in an era when the thinking of educated urbanities has moved so far away from that of the rest of the country. There is no language in common anymore, not on science, ethics, faith or economics.

Interesting proposals and points, but all of them are mainly focused on national issues and how to convince American working-class families.

I wonder if foreign policy is relevant to those eventual voters and motivates them to vote for one or the other.

There are a lot of examples of that, but it comes to mind three:

1) Palestine's sovereignty. I guess Democrats are pro-Palestine, but I don't know if it is an important matter amongst the voters

2) European Union. Democrats see us as friends or pals, at least. Republicans are clearly against us, and they flirt with Russia. Maybe it could motivate the voters that their leader prefers European values—we are not perfect. I know. I know.—rather than Putin's old-school hating style of everything and everyone.

3) UK. Republicans seem to flirt with Brexit and isolating them even more. This is a terrible idea, and the Western world should be united, not chopped into chunks. A person who believes in a united world should vote Democrat.

But all of the above is from a foreign policy perspective, and I don't know to what extent this is relevant for the average American voter.

I disagree that Republicans destroy any more so than any other ideological movement destroys. Conserving by nature seeks to preserve the status quo, so destruction it would seem, is more useful to a liberal than a conservative. Liberals by nature seek to overthrow (destroy) existing institutions, mores and customs.

But I knit-pick. I agree with most of your post.

Save for reproductive rights being a good issue for liberals. It’s a loser issue for both sides. The sides have hardened as ‘protecting the baby by destroying the mother’ versus ‘protecting the mother by destroying the baby.’ Losers all around. Both parties should figure out a way to start that conversation over. Conservatives should abandoned government intervention and focus on charity if they want to change minds and save unborn babies from being aborted, and liberals should be less spastic about slippery slopes - abortion is legal all over the place. Make some laws and deal with it (many of the abortion protection measures won a greater majority than Trump did, showing that many “conservatives” or people in general, are going to keep on protecting or extending abortion rights.). On current terms proposed by either side, abortion is a loser issue lodged deep in each party’s respective base so it is useless to move any needles.

Hating white men is just a bad idea, and it contradicts human rights. Maybe just hate the bad white men, for the sake of all good people, which includes the good white men? The whole line of liberal thinking about the hetero paternalistic white male has to be reevaluated. It’s just too simplistic, too reductive, too brittle when challenged, and any white dad who sees value in hating white dads because they are white and a dad is kidding himself.

Hating guns and gun owners - another loser like abortion. Guns and gun owners, like unwanted pregnancy and abortions, are here to stay. Figure it out, regulate it, set limits, argue to change minds, but do not ban. Here, the republicans have to get over the slippery slope bullshit. Homeowners don’t need nuclear weapons. Find some lines, adapt them as technology changes, but recognize government will always need to regulate this.

I don’t think it is moral to see any individual as you might see a stereotype. Talking about “liberals” and “conservatives” helps move conversations in big steps, which is fine. But to hate me personally, for instance, because I am a “conservative” or a “white male”, to even think that you know someone because he said he was a conservative, is just wrong. Our politicians, leaders, and media, and most of all, you and me, do this all of the time. We ignore the individual by seeing only some stereotype. Politicians and media want to rally voters or sell ad space, so they dramatize stereotypes of evil-doers and throw whole groups of people in them. It’s immoral, or simple-minded, or childish, or simply ignores the texture ad complexity that actually exist.

We all need to remember the people in our lives that we know and love who also happen to vote for the other party. We have to humbly accept that our own opinions may be the wrong ones and listen. Just listen to the other side and sift through all of their stereotypical bullshit for some semblance of a good reason they might think differently than you do.

Both sides need to listen to each other. Because I love some people who vote democrat and some people who vote republican I asked how it can be that I can see polar opposites at the same time as I see the same love and friendship? How are liberals good? How are conservatives good? I came up with this analogy: picture a baby in a small tub of dirty water. Conservatives see the baby and say “look at how cute babies are, we may want to do something to clean the water but no matter what we need to preserve that cute baby.” Liberals see this and say “look at how ugly that water is, we may need to do something to protect that baby, but no matter what that water has to change.” Conservative impulses are to preserve the good; liberal impulses are to change the bad. Both are needed.

Everyone is looking to do good. But we are often mistaking two different conversations (baby or bathwater) for two different ideas of what “good” means. No one wants to actually listen to each other. Most don’t think the other side is worth listening to or capable of listening to our side, because of stereotypes bombarding us by the media and the politicians.

We should never think of our political party of choice as anything more than a convenience. We de-humanize ourselves when we buy into the categorization of whole groups of people as “deplorable” or “vermin” or even simply “they”. They is our own family, our neighbors and friends.

Interesting proposals and points, but all of them are mainly focused on national issues and how to convince American working-class families.

I wonder if foreign policy is relevant to those eventual voters and motivates them to vote for one or the other. — javi2541997

That's a good point. I didn't mention it because I'm not sure any foreign policy position would have much impact on an election here.

Palestine's sovereignty. I guess Democrats are pro-Palestine, but I don't know if it is an important matter amongst the voters — javi2541997

I think Palestinian sovereignty is the right thing, but it is a fraught issue here in the US and it's not clear to me who it helps. Both Jewish and Arabic voters tend to vote Democratic. One or the other is going to be pissed off no matter what you do.

European Union. Democrats see us as friends or pals, at least. Republicans are clearly against us, and they flirt with Russia. Maybe it could motivate the voters that their leader prefers European values—we are not perfect. I know. I know.—rather than Putin's old-school hating style of everything and everyone. — javi2541997

I'm sure Putin is happy with the election. Trump has made his lack of support for Europe and NATO clear. Again, I don't think this would be a major factor in whom Americans would vote for.

UK. Republicans seem to flirt with Brexit and isolating them even more. This is a terrible idea, and the Western world should be united, not chopped into chunks. A person who believes in a united world should vote Democrat. — javi2541997

I think both Democrats and Republicans are moving in an isolationist direction, probably Trump more than Biden. An example - Biden's policy focusing on manufacturing jobs here in the US. All and all, I think globalization has been bad for American workers, but, again, I'm not sure who is helped or hurt politically.

Sounds like the general assessment I've been hearing is that the party needs to stop being oversensitive social justice warriors while focusing more on bread and butter issues which I certainly agree with. I mean that was the way forward for Democrats since 2016 (less Hillary Clinton with her neoliberalism and obsession over her gender and more Bernie Sanders who obsesses over working class issues).

The problem is that I feel like party leadership understands the latter but they actively choose not to change in order to maintain their influence. The neoliberal status quo era is over and to be able to push back against the populist right the left needs a populist message of their own. It's clear what that message should be but that makes the elites in the party uncomfortable so they'll do everything they can to push out any potentially inspiring candidates with a bold vision even if it comes at the risk of putting up dull and pathetic figures like Biden.

I think Palestinian sovereignty is the right thing, but it is a fraught issue here in the US and it's not clear to me who it helps. Both Jewish and Arabic voters tend to vote Democratic. One or the other is going to be pissed off no matter what you do. — T Clark

Yeah but it's hard to see most Jewish voters being mad simply for reining in Netanyahu from committing war crimes vs. Arabs who will be mad if you don't. Obama was able to stand up to Israel on issues like the Iran Nuclear Deal but his support from Jewish voters remained strong.

You know how I think the Democrats could have won this election? If they had nominated an old-style National Review-type Republican in the tradition of George H. Bush, Eisenhower, David Brooks, George Will , Charles Krauthammer, Liz Cheney and David Frum (strong on national defense, supportive of an anti-Russia policy, economically libertarian and socially moderate). Progressives would have held their noses and voted for such a candidate over Trump, while enough potential Trump voters would have changed sides to put the Democrats over the top. — Joshs

There used to be moderately liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. Not anymore. The Democrats in Congress couldn't even work with moderates like Manchin and Sinema, so they're gone now. So, I think your idea is pie in the sky. For me, Biden was exactly the right candidate. As far as I'm concerned, he is the best president in my adult lifetime. My first election was in 1972. I voted for McGovern. What I'm looking for is a strategy so that candidates like him or Harris can win.

Second, and most important: what the large densely-populated urban centers (which is where most democrats are concentrated) need is very different from what rural voters and social conservatives need. 70% of economic productivity and wealth generation is located in Democrat-dominated urban centers, and Democrat views on everything from energy policy to healthcare and education are direct expressions of their understanding of what it takes to make that economic engine thrive.

Trump supporters know exactly how to make an economy of the 1950’s thrive, but that’s a recipe for failure in the 21st century. The urban dwellers are speaking a foreign language to the ears of Trump supporters, not just on social issues but also economic ones, so we progressives can’t expect the majority of the country who supports Trump, and a return to the economic thinking of a previous century, to fork over their money to support our causes. — Joshs

I'm not sure what to say to your characterization of the differences between Democrats and Republicans. It's certainly an oversimplification. I also think it's not accurate. I think on economic issues, Democratic policies are better for working class people, no matter where they live. That's the point of my post - we have to back off on primarily social policies that drive these voters away.

We need to find a way to use our own plentiful resources to further our way of life in the cities, which will only pull us father away from traditional America but is necessary for us to thrive on our own terms. — Joshs

I don't think internal isolationism will work. Many of those liberal cities are located in conservative states. It also isn't the way I'd like to see it go. I think the values represented in the Republican party these days are those of a fairly small group of exceedingly ideological politicians supported by corporate business. The issues I raised in the OP are those I think, hope, might bring moderates back into my party.

The Democratic coalition between intellectuals and blue collar workers which was successful for 50 years worked because the great majority of people in both the cities and small towns were less educated workers. That coalition can’t be put back together in an era when the thinking of educated urbanities has moved so far away from that of the rest of the country. There is no language in common anymore, not on science, ethics, faith or economics. — Joshs

I think you're overstating the case, but I don't necessarily disagree. I think the right description of what you call "less educated workers" is just working people. They're the people who the Democratic party needs to bring back. They belong with us. I just want to make sure they're not being kept out by issues and political strategies not central to our political philosophy.

Being a Canadian, it was hard to understand just what happened there. From outside, it seemed like Harris was intelligent and competent enough. But the way in which she was chosen was a little problematic. Rather than a democratic-style selection, they seemed to just appoint her oligarchically based on a number of noteworthy people's opinions. In my experience, Americans in general are open-minded and not against voting for a female or someone with ties outside their country, but they have to have proved themselves as competent in their own right. The whole thing seemed a little thrown together last minute, and it appeared like they didn't approach the fact that she was female with enough caution to make it seem genuine.

What you're saying is an opinion shared here as well. All in all, the left all over the world is posing as the voice of science and enlightenment, which can run the risk of falling into the trap of seeing others as wrong and morally indecent in order to negatively make the case that the observer and their views are correct and morally decent. To be blunt, this trap is mostly made up of people who have done bad things in their past who now are forced to repress their violent feelings to live arbitrarily free. If you are alive and breathing, chances are you have some moral indecency in you, one should be reminded of this from time to time. Whoever you are, you probably have a darker side of your personality and it needs to be fed regularly or else it will begin to hurt you from within.

I disagree that Republicans destroy any more so than any other ideological movement destroys. Conserving by nature seeks to preserve the status quo, so destruction it would seem, is more useful to a liberal than a conservative. Liberals by nature seek to overthrow (destroy) existing institutions, mores and customs. — Fire Ologist

This is a characterization of the differences between the parties/political philosophies that might have had some truth in the past, but it no longer does. Republicans no longer care about governing, they only care about winning and their strategy for achieving that is to drive people apart. Republicans are not conservatives in any meaningful way anymore.

Save for reproductive rights being a good issue for liberals. It’s a loser issue for both sides. The sides have hardened as ‘protecting the baby by destroying the mother’ versus ‘protecting the mother by destroying the baby.’ Losers all around. Both parties should figure out a way to start that conversation over. — Fire Ologist

I agree with this approach from a policy perspective, but I was only talking from a present day political viewpoint - what will win elections. The majority of Americans, including in conservative states, support reproductive rights, including abortion, with differences in details between regions. The vast majority support birth control.

Hating guns and gun owners - another loser like abortion. Guns and gun owners, like unwanted pregnancy and abortions, are here to stay. Figure it out, regulate it, set limits, argue to change minds, but do not ban. — Fire Ologist

Agreed, but that will take changes in attitude on both sides. In this discussion, I'm only looking at what Democrats can do without Republican support.

Our politicians, leaders, and media, and most of all, you and me, do this all of the time. We ignore the individual by seeing only some stereotype. — Fire Ologist

Yes. This is the main point I'm trying to make. Why can't we all just get along. I think most Americans still share more values, and more foundational issues, than they disagree on. Again, there are things Democrats can do without Republican participation.

We all need to remember the people in our lives that we know and love who also happen to vote for the other party. We have to humbly accept that our own opinions may be the wrong ones and listen. — Fire Ologist

When my family get together every year in February for my stepmother's birthday there are usually 15 of us and we're all strongly liberal. For the past few years my brother's parents-in-law have been coming. They're from South Carolina and are Trump supporters. We have to keep them at the far end of the table away from my sister, who is vociferous and uncompromising in here political positions. I'm surprised they keep coming. You can see it is hard for them to accept the members of the family with non-standard ways of life, but they are polite and keep it to themselves.

Everyone is looking to do good. — Fire Ologist

I don't think that's necessarily true. Both parties have significant groups who care more about winning than governing. In the Republican party, that group has become the majority of the base.

We should never think of our political party of choice as anything more than a convenience. — Fire Ologist

I don't agree. The Republicans have made themselves as a conscious political act the party who cares more about ideology than governing. It started in the 1970s.

But yes, you and I agree on most of this.

The problem is that I feel like party leadership understands the latter but they actively choose not to change in order to maintain their influence. — Mr Bee

I don't think influence is the primary issue, although they do have to deal with those further to the left. I think they do what they believe, both personally and ideologically.

The neoliberal status quo era is over and to be able to push back against the populist right the left needs a populist message of their own. It's clear what that message should be but that makes the elites in the party uncomfortable so they'll do everything they can to push out any potentially inspiring candidates with a bold vision even if it comes at the risk of putting up dull and pathetic figures like Biden. — Mr Bee

What would a populist Democrat look like? What issues would they promote?

As I've noted elsewhere in this thread, I think Biden is the best president in my adult lifetime.

Yeah but it's hard to see most Jewish voters being mad simply for reining in Netanyahu from committing war crimes vs. Arabs who will be mad if you don't. Obama was able to stand up to Israel on issues like the Iran Nuclear Deal but his support from Jewish voters remained strong. — Mr Bee

Your probably right, I was wrong to focus on just Arabs vs. Jews. There are strong voices for Israel in both Republican and Democratic parties along with strong voices for Palestine with the Democrats. I think the general sense of chaos hurt Biden and Harris.

In my experience, Americans in general are open-minded and not against voting for a female or someone with ties outside their country, but they have to have proved themselves as competent in their own right. The whole thing seemed a little thrown together last minute, and it appeared like they didn't approach the fact that she was female with enough caution to make it seem genuine. — kudos

I don't think the manner in which Harris was chosen was the issue. My guess is that it was primarily that we let the Republicans set the agenda. My suggestions are meant to be a part of addressing that.

To be blunt, this trap is mostly made up of people who have done bad things in their past who now are forced to repress their violent feelings to live arbitrarily free. — kudos

This is exactly the attitude I am arguing against.

If you are alive and breathing, chances are you have some moral indecency in you, one should be reminded of this from time to time. Whoever you are, you probably have a darker side of your personality and it needs to be fed regularly or else it will begin to hurt you from within. — kudos

Your opinion of human nature is different from mine.

All and all, I think globalization has been bad for American workers — T Clark

Really? In what sense?

That's a good point. I didn't mention it because I'm not sure any foreign policy position would have much impact on an election here. — T Clark

I thought the same. Yet I considered that maybe those points would be also relevant to the American voter. Since I now understand that they might not be considered, I can't name more proposals or points to convince people to vote for Democrats. What if the donkey (I love the party logo) gives up on 'Indiana' or 'Oklahoma' and they put all the efforts in an industrialised working class like the one of Wisconsin and Pennsylvania?

All and all, I think globalization has been bad for American workers
— T Clark

Really? In what sense? — javi2541997

American wages, adjusted for inflation, haven't gone up since the 1970s. Good paying industrial jobs have been replaced by service jobs. The economic distance between working people and management and technical people has gotten much bigger.

What if the donkey (I love the party logo) gives up on 'Indiana' or 'Oklahoma' and they put all the efforts in an industrialised working class like the one of Wisconsin and Pennsylvania? — javi2541997

The Democrats put very little money in conservative states except sometimes for specific federal candidates. Most money is spent for "swing states", e.g. Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, Michigan.

The Democrats put very little money in conservative states except sometimes for specific federal candidates. Most money is spent for "swing states", e.g. Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, Michigan. — T Clark

Exactly what it was in my mind. Industrialised states with white working-class families. It surprises me that Georgia or Arizona are plausible states to flip them into blue. Good luck. You—and Europe, of course— deserve politicians who govern and build up, not ones who destroy and divide people.

Listen to Bernie. It is that simple. He should be running the party.

Good luck with that :)

I am a strong leaning conservative and you seem to be a strong leaning Democrat, so this should be an interesting conversation :smile: . IMHO, the reason the democrats lost is because they have lost the common sense constitutional values. They have been advocating for censorship, prosecution for differing beliefs, essentially the revocation of the 2nd amendment, child mutilation, the disbandment of basic gender distinction in society (like bathrooms), etc. I think America woke up and realized that this is getting out-of-hand; and wants to go back to America’s core values.

Enough with guns already

Every time I discuss gun control with a liberal, they always end up using the phrase “reasonable gun control” to advocate for the infringement of our 2nd amendment rights; and then turn around and say “I am pro-2nd amendment just like you”. The only form of “gun control” that is contextually aligned with the 2nd amendment, historically, is background checks—that’s it. You can’t, e.g., say you are pro-2nd amendment and then turn around and ban the guns that are the most useful for rebelling against a tyrannical government (such as “assault weapon bans”).

One major reason Kamala lost is because she is on record saying that she will violate the constitution to force people to give the government their “assault weapons”.

Also, don’t get me started on the non-nonsensical clowns at the ATF—you gave them an inch, and they certainly took a mile.

provide funding to send transgender students to private schools where they will be more welcome

Who is funding this? It better not be my taxes.

Use government funds to install unisex bathrooms in schools willing to use them.

I’m ok with that, as long as it comes out of the schools’ existing budgets instead of raising property taxes on the community to get a bond.

The main difference I personally find between liberals and conservatives is that liberals tend to think all ideally and conservatives all pragmatically. You say “let’s do this to help with this” and I say “who’s paying for it?”...round and round she goes.

Stop hating white men. No, not everything is their fault. Movements like Black Lives Matter infuriate people. Heck, they infuriate me. And they don’t work.

Agreed. Moreover, let’s stop with the identity politics—it’s nonsense. This is another reason Democrats lost. People want a merit-based society, where race, gender, ethnicity, etc. do not matter. When liberals create, e.g., quotas for diversity based solely on those kinds of demographics (like race), that’s reintroducing racism and what not into the mix. Pick the best people for the job—stop trying to force the outcomes.

I’m a supporter of gay marriage but it cost us a lot.

I am not for gay marriage, but not because I think it is immoral per se (like stereotypical conservatives): it’s because the State has institutionalized marriage for the sole purpose of incentivizing the Human Good (in the Aristotelian sense) which involves, as a generally applicable rule, people having a lifelong, intimate, heterosexual, procreative, closed, and monogamous relationship with someone else. Once you tack on gay couples, there’s no end: why not polygamous? Why not open relationships? Why can’t 50 people go to the county and get married to each other as a group? Institutionalized marriage becomes trivial and, at that point, something, quite frankly, the government shouldn’t be meddling in.

My questions for you would be:

1. Why should the government meddle in gay monogamous marriage but not gay polygamous marriage?

2. If the idea is just to have the State recognize people who are promising their lives, intimately, to each other, then why not like a libertarian stance and get rid of institutionalized marriage altogether? People could still get married in the metaphorical sense.

Keep supporting women’s reproductive rights. This is a good issue for us.

It is a good issue for you, since a lot of people agree in America with you; but, for me, it’s nonsense. You can’t ensure women’s reproductive rights by violating someone else’s rights—that’s immoral.

Stop showing contempt for people you disagree with. I like and respect many Trump supporters whom I’ve met. Of course they show contempt for us too. Too bad. Learn to live with it.

I don’t have contempt for you Clark :heart:. I think both sides need to have more of these conversations.

I don't think influence is the primary issue, although they do have to deal with those further to the left. I think they do what they believe, both personally and ideologically. — T Clark

Given how they've treated him it seems more like they fear Bernie than simply disagree with him. Biden was a mediocre politician who came in 4th in Iowa despite being the initial frontrunner in 2020. The reason why he got the nomination was because Bernie was about to win it and the party leaders acted very quickly to rally around Biden before Super Tuesday.

What would a populist Democrat look like? What issues would they promote? — T Clark

Bernie is the easiest choice but anyone who has a bold vision that's different from the current Democrat party would be welcome as well.

As I've noted elsewhere in this thread, I think Biden is the best president in my adult lifetime. — T Clark

I'd say yes domestically, particularly with regards to the amount of major legislation he passed. That being said, his foreign policy was abysmal and his ego causing him to run again makes him one of the worst in my opinion. Honestly if he just chose not to run again and Gaza didn't happen we'd be having a different conversation but unfortunately we got to see a very ugly side of him this past year.

I am a strong leaning conservative and you seem to be a strong leaning Democrat, so this should be an interesting conversation :smile: . IMHO, the reason the democrats lost is because they have lost the common sense constitutional values. They have been advocating for censorship, prosecution for differing beliefs, essentially the revocation of the 2nd amendment, child mutilation, the disbandment of basic gender distinction in society (like bathrooms), etc. I think America woke up and realized that this is getting out-of-hand; and wants to go back to America’s core values — Bob Ross

I’m curious. Did you vote for Trump or abstain from voting?
I’m asking because all of the principled old-style National Review-style conservatives that I know of (David Brooks, George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Liz and Dick Cheney, David Frum, Ross Douthat, David French, Brett Stephens and many others) have consistency refused to vote for Trump. I have concluded that one must be to the right of these people in one’s social and religious views in order for a vote for Trump to be seen as better than not voting.

I voted for Trump, because I am afraid of what Kamala would have done to our country. My policy is to vote for the lesser of the two evils, and not to abstain in principle. To me, abstaining is a cop-out to not engage in a sticky moral dilemma: either I have to abstain because it would be immoral for me to do anything, or I need to do something about it. In this case, I don't see anything wrong with choosing the lesser of the two evils.

EDIT

I can see there point though: if it were Hitler or Stalin that I had to vote for, then, yeah, I am not voting and am probably going to start trying to overthrow the government.

I think America woke up and realized that this is getting out-of-hand; and wants to go back to America’s core values. — Bob Ross

You mean the continent altogether? :razz:

Jokes aside...

For a foreigner like me, it is complicated to understand America's core values. Following your views and posts, it seems that an American core value is gun freedom; also, you are against censorship, but you would avoid having a LGTBIQ flag in your classroom; then, you claim that it is essential to have different beliefs, but some of you label as 'Communist' the working model of Mondragón (Spain) for not being capitalist enough. 

A core value... complicated, mate.

For me, it is to have a strong national healthcare system. So, to you is carrying a M-16 in your big polluting Ford truck.

I voted for Trump, because I am afraid of what Kamala would have done to our country. My policy is to vote for the lesser of the two evils, and not to abstain in principle — Bob Ross

Yep, you are definitely to the right of what used to be considered establishment Conservatism. I would say that the majority of the U.S. shares your view ( and always did), and that the outlook of educated urbanites is so far removed from your worldview that there is little room for compromise, which is fine with me. Trump supporters should work to strengthen the America that they believe in and urbanites need to do likewise. Neither side can be allowed to shove their values down the throats of the other side , so in order to protect the Union we need to devolve as much power to the states as possible, and the big cities need to think about coordinating with and supporting each other in more useful ways. I love my city and its values, and look forward to contributing to pushing it even farther away from Trump conservativism as it is now. I also love short visits to Trump’s America, but I can’t live there. I want both Americas to thrive, protected from each other’s values. (I know, you’ll say “ But my values are the morally correct ones, and the liberal cities are on the path to hell”)

For a foreigner like me, it is complicated to understand America's core values — javi2541997

The split in values in America between Trump supporters and those who reject him correlates precisely with population density. I think you’ll find the typical values of those in New York City, San Francisco, Boston and Seattle overlap your own fairly well. You are Iberian, no? Isnt there a split of values in your country, as well as the rest of Europe and the U.K. between rural traditionalists and urban residents? Isnt it this split which contributed to Brexit , anti-immigrant sentiment, support for Le Pen and Italy’s socially conservative leader? America is a much less urban country than Europe , Britain or Australia, so there is a large ground for Trump support.

Another suggestion would be to allow the Democrat voters the power to choose their own candidate. Obama won because he pushed Hillary aside by actually being popular. Personality matters. Just affixing a (D) at the end of someone's name isn't going to assure them votes. The Republican process is a free for all, which is making it ironically a much more democratic process.

Isnt there a split of values in your country, — Joshs

My country never had core values, Joshs. We are even more chaotic and incomprehensible than the USA.

We never really experienced the First Industrial Revolution and Second Industrial Revolution to have a view on rural and urban areas. When London was the core of industrial civilisation, Spain was still rural altogether, and we continued in this context until the 1980s.

For a foreigner like me, it is complicated to understand America's core values. Following your views and posts, it seems that an American core value is gun freedom; also, you are against censorship, but you would avoid having a LGTBIQ flag in your classroom; then, you claim that it is essential to have different beliefs, but some of you label as 'Communist' the working model of Mondragón (Spain) for not being capitalist enough. 

A core value... complicated, mate.

For me, it is to have a strong national healthcare system. So, to you is carrying a M-16 in your big polluting Ford truck. — javi2541997

I'm not sure what you mean by "core value." Gun ownership is a 2nd Amendment right and free speach is a 1st Amendment right, so those could be classified as core values. The 1st Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to teachers to fly whatever flag or post whatever poster in their classroom they want, so I don't see the hypocrisy there. Government buildings can have designated purposes, and it's not clear why it would be appropriate to have an LGBT flag hanging in the classrom or why it'd be appropriate to fly a right wing oriented flag.

America is a capitalist country, which makes it less Marxist than other countries, which I guess is just true. I don't know how much time Americans spend thinking and commenting upon the working model of Spain, but, to the extent it is more communistic than the US, that would likely not be something many Americans would want to emulate.

The US does have strong national healthcare. Your concern is over affordability and accessibility. That is not a Constitutional issue in the US, but it is true that a very large number of people do not want a government controlled healthcare system in the US.

The M-16? Sure, we all walk around with fully automatic rifles. As to the attack on the Ford truck, you've not just ridiculed the rednecks you envision bouncing around on the back roads with their rebel flags, but also the union workers who built those vehicles who @T Clark just lamented were leaving the Democratic party for this very reason.

If everyone who thinks differently than you is forced to listen to lectures about how stupid they are, then they'll stand behind Trump and laugh as he gives them the middle finger. And that's precisely what he represents.

I'm not sure what you mean by "core value." — Hanover

Me either, Hanover. That's why I asked @Bob Ross. But you miss an important feature. He said 'American core values'. Are there Belgian core values? Swedish core values? Etc.

America is a capitalist country, which makes it less Marxist than other countries, which I guess is just true. — Hanover

The European Union is also capitalist, but whenever Social Democrats rule the Commission, they are labelled as 'Marxist' by some Americans. They aren't. That's what I tried to explain.

. I don't know how much time Americans spend thinking and commenting upon the working model of Spain, but, to the extent it is more communistic than the US, that would likely not be something many Americans would want to emulate. — Hanover

It is not communist. They work using a cooperation method, instead of the average pyramidal hierarchy system. They are doing it well, but maybe it only works in small towns in Basque Country.

The US does have strong national healthcare. Your concern is over affordability and accessibility. — Hanover

Yeah.

The M-16? Sure, we all walk around with fully automatic rifles. — Hanover

I wish that was only ironical... but you know there are a large number of citizens who carry guns with them, and that's crazy when it is seen by the rest of us.

If everyone who thinks differently than you is forced to listen to lectures about how stupid they are, — Hanover

That's what the forum is for.

I am a strong leaning conservative and you seem to be a strong leaning Democrat, — Bob Ross

I am a strong liberal on policy and value issues, but a moderate on process, governance, and compromise. I don't think that's comparable to your type of conservativism. From what I can see you are a jingoist ideologue. You toe the party line and don't seem particularly interested in how the US will be governed as opposed to ideology.

the reason the democrats lost is because they have lost the common sense constitutional values. — Bob Ross

Says a supporter of the party that tried to overthrow the results of a free and fair election for president in 2020. The party that refused to consider a Democratic Supreme Court nominee for purely partisan reasons. This is a joke.

Every time I discuss gun control with a liberal, they always end up using the phrase “reasonable gun control” to advocate for the infringement of our 2nd amendment rights; — Bob Ross

I attributed a willingness to accept reasonable gun control to conservatives I know and know of. It includes such things as registration, permitting, background checks, gun safety, and restrictions on ownership for certain groups, e.g. convicted criminals. Most people in the US would approve of that type of measure. I think they would be approved by even those in conservative states if they trusted it wouldn't lead to more restrictive measures.

provide funding to send transgender students to private schools where they will be more welcome

Who is funding this? It better not be my taxes. — Bob Ross

I envisioned it being paid for by private funds. Liberals should put their money where their mouth is. Just like conservatives should put their money where their anti-abortion mouths are and provide funding for all those children they want to see born.

The main difference I personally find between liberals and conservatives is that liberals tend to think all ideally and conservatives all pragmatically. — Bob Ross

This from the guy who wants to send US troops into other sovereign countries to force our ideological preferences down their throats. That's pragmatism?

People want a merit-based society, where race, gender, ethnicity, etc. do not matter. — Bob Ross

No. Republicans want to pretend the way black people have been treated historically is no longer an issue. It turns my stomach. The State of Florida has made it part of the school curricula that slaves benefitted from slavery. The government has to have a role in setting things right.

let’s stop with the identity politics—it’s nonsense. — Bob Ross

The Republican party is as guilty of this as the Democrats. That's why I want to get us out of that business.

My questions for you would be:

1. Why should the government meddle in gay monogamous marriage but not gay polygamous marriage?

2. If the idea is just to have the State recognize people who are promising their lives, intimately, to each other, then why not like a libertarian stance and get rid of institutionalized marriage altogether? People could still get married in the metaphorical sense. — Bob Ross

For me, marriage has always been about protecting children. If you don't plan to have children, you shouldn't get married. That would apply to both gay and straight people. But that would never work, so allowing gay marriage is the only practical approach. The great majority of Americans, even in conservative states, support this.

Given how they've treated him it seems more like they fear Bernie than simply disagree with him. — Mr Bee

I like Sanders a lot, but I don't think his kind of liberal can win. We need to be more in the center.

Biden was a mediocre politician — Mr Bee

You and I disagree on Biden.

Another suggestion would be to allow the Democrat voters the power to choose their own candidate. — Hanover

You're right that the way Harris was chosen had a negative impact on the results.

I like Sanders a lot, but I don't think his kind of liberal can win. We need to be more in the center. — T Clark

Sure. My general point is that the Democrats need a more bold vision than what they have been doing which is offering essentially the status quo with some tweaks. I don't think you can really put an end to the populist right otherwise, since this is a time where people want to move on from the neoliberal era.