CDZ If you . . .

[Coyote]

There is a right or wrong on every issue.

Of course, that isn't true. On some issues we can all agree there is a right and a wrong, but on other issues it's simply a matter of opinion. But convincing yourself that the world is simple and binary certainly does excuse you from having to do the heavy lifting of communicating with others, considering and analyzing other ideas or new ideas, and -- horror of horrors -- occasionally changing your mind or admitting you were wrong.

There is fact, and there is opinion. Two different things.

Wingers confuse fact with opinion because they are intellectually lazy and terribly narcissistic. I'm always right, you're always wrong. I don't want to hear it. I will not even consider anything else. That's it. My side has all the answers. No listening, no thinking, just attacking.

Then they exist in their ideological vacuums, their echo chambers, and harden themselves further to their little worlds. The internet has been great for that.
.

On many issues...we agree there is a problem, and we know what the end result should look like, we just disagree on how to get there.

 

[Mac1958]

There is a right or wrong on every issue.

Of course, that isn't true. On some issues we can all agree there is a right and a wrong, but on other issues it's simply a matter of opinion. But convincing yourself that the world is simple and binary certainly does excuse you from having to do the heavy lifting of communicating with others, considering and analyzing other ideas or new ideas, and -- horror of horrors -- occasionally changing your mind or admitting you were wrong.

There is fact, and there is opinion. Two different things.

Wingers confuse fact with opinion because they are intellectually lazy and terribly narcissistic. I'm always right, you're always wrong. I don't want to hear it. I will not even consider anything else. That's it. My side has all the answers. No listening, no thinking, just attacking.

Then they exist in their ideological vacuums, their echo chambers, and harden themselves further to their little worlds. The internet has been great for that.
.

Well, when someone is USUALLY wrong, it only makes sense that you would consider them pretty much ALWAYS wrong.

When have the leftists convinced you that your views are wrong and that you should adopt their views? Over which issues?

I don't know what you mean by "wrong". Do you mean factually, demonstrably, objectively wrong, or wrong in your opinion?

If I think a comedian is funny and you think they're not, does that make me wrong?
.

 

[ChrisL]

There is a right or wrong on every issue.

Of course, that isn't true. On some issues we can all agree there is a right and a wrong, but on other issues it's simply a matter of opinion. But convincing yourself that the world is simple and binary certainly does excuse you from having to do the heavy lifting of communicating with others, considering and analyzing other ideas or new ideas, and -- horror of horrors -- occasionally changing your mind or admitting you were wrong.

There is fact, and there is opinion. Two different things.

Wingers confuse fact with opinion because they are intellectually lazy and terribly narcissistic. I'm always right, you're always wrong. I don't want to hear it. I will not even consider anything else. That's it. My side has all the answers. No listening, no thinking, just attacking.

Then they exist in their ideological vacuums, their echo chambers, and harden themselves further to their little worlds. The internet has been great for that.
.

Well, when someone is USUALLY wrong, it only makes sense that you would consider them pretty much ALWAYS wrong.

When have the leftists convinced you that your views are wrong and that you should adopt their views? Over which issues?

I don't know what you mean by "wrong". Do you mean factually, demonstrably, objectively wrong, or wrong in your opinion?

If I think a comedian is funny and you think they're not, does that make me wrong?
.

I mean exactly what I asked. It's not complicated. On what issues have leftists convinced you that your views were wrong and that their views were the "correct" views? You were just telling another poster that his views could be "wrong." So I suppose I mean the same thing as you when you used the term "wrong."

 

[ChrisL]

considering and analyzing other ideas or new ideas, and -- horror of horrors -- occasionally changing your mind or admitting you were wrong.

For example, the above statement.

 

[ChrisL]

I cannot ever have respect for a person who wants to take my rights away. As much as some of you want us to just "compromise" and/or just "get along," it isn't going to happen when it comes to something SO important. If I feel that a portion of America is trying to take something from me, then I am never going to be "friendly" to those people. That is the bottom line here. I see them as my mortal enemies.

 

[Mac1958]

There is a right or wrong on every issue.

Of course, that isn't true. On some issues we can all agree there is a right and a wrong, but on other issues it's simply a matter of opinion. But convincing yourself that the world is simple and binary certainly does excuse you from having to do the heavy lifting of communicating with others, considering and analyzing other ideas or new ideas, and -- horror of horrors -- occasionally changing your mind or admitting you were wrong.

There is fact, and there is opinion. Two different things.

Wingers confuse fact with opinion because they are intellectually lazy and terribly narcissistic. I'm always right, you're always wrong. I don't want to hear it. I will not even consider anything else. That's it. My side has all the answers. No listening, no thinking, just attacking.

Then they exist in their ideological vacuums, their echo chambers, and harden themselves further to their little worlds. The internet has been great for that.
.

Well, when someone is USUALLY wrong, it only makes sense that you would consider them pretty much ALWAYS wrong.

When have the leftists convinced you that your views are wrong and that you should adopt their views? Over which issues?

I don't know what you mean by "wrong". Do you mean factually, demonstrably, objectively wrong, or wrong in your opinion?

If I think a comedian is funny and you think they're not, does that make me wrong?
.

I mean exactly what I asked. It's not complicated. On what issues have leftists convinced you that your views were wrong and that their views were the "correct" views? You were just telling another poster that his views could be "wrong." So I suppose I mean the same thing as you when you used the term "wrong."

That's a tough question because I rarely agree 100% with either end of the spectrum on anything.

Over the years I've moved to the Left, at least somewhat, on several issues. Individual income taxation, gay rights, abortion, certain elements of the race issue.

But I don't just permanently bind myself to an ideology, because all that does is intellectually paralyze people. I'm naturally curious, so that just doesn't work for me.
.

 

[rightwinger]

There is a right or wrong on every issue.

Of course, that isn't true. On some issues we can all agree there is a right and a wrong, but on other issues it's simply a matter of opinion. But convincing yourself that the world is simple and binary certainly does excuse you from having to do the heavy lifting of communicating with others, considering and analyzing other ideas or new ideas, and -- horror of horrors -- occasionally changing your mind or admitting you were wrong.

There is fact, and there is opinion. Two different things.

Wingers confuse fact with opinion because they are intellectually lazy and terribly narcissistic. I'm always right, you're always wrong. I don't want to hear it. I will not even consider anything else. That's it. My side has all the answers. No listening, no thinking, just attacking.

Then they exist in their ideological vacuums, their echo chambers, and harden themselves further to their little worlds. The internet has been great for that.
.

The inability to compromise has crippled our government

 

[ChrisL]

There is a right or wrong on every issue.

Of course, that isn't true. On some issues we can all agree there is a right and a wrong, but on other issues it's simply a matter of opinion. But convincing yourself that the world is simple and binary certainly does excuse you from having to do the heavy lifting of communicating with others, considering and analyzing other ideas or new ideas, and -- horror of horrors -- occasionally changing your mind or admitting you were wrong.

There is fact, and there is opinion. Two different things.

Wingers confuse fact with opinion because they are intellectually lazy and terribly narcissistic. I'm always right, you're always wrong. I don't want to hear it. I will not even consider anything else. That's it. My side has all the answers. No listening, no thinking, just attacking.

Then they exist in their ideological vacuums, their echo chambers, and harden themselves further to their little worlds. The internet has been great for that.
.

The inability to compromise has crippled our government

Well, exactly what is it that you would compromise on?

 

[rightwinger]

I find it very curious how people can just tow the party line

I believe that would be "toe the party line" derived from "toe the line"...

"Tow the party line" is an eggcorn.

I thought it was
“Tow the party lion”

I did think it was "tow the party line." It makes more sense than "toe the party line." Toeing the line would mean standing ON the line. Towing the line would mean pulling the line, which is much more descriptive as to what you leftists do.

The point is mute

 

[ChrisL]

I find it very curious how people can just tow the party line

I believe that would be "toe the party line" derived from "toe the line"...

"Tow the party line" is an eggcorn.

I thought it was
“Tow the party lion”

I did think it was "tow the party line." It makes more sense than "toe the party line." Toeing the line would mean standing ON the line. Towing the line would mean pulling the line, which is much more descriptive as to what you leftists do.

The point is mute

Stop being silly and answer my question about compromise. What issues are YOU willing to compromise on?

 

[martybegan]

The Constitution gives power for things like that to the State Legislatures.

And there is also the idea of local rule. If the people of Alabama want to ban abortion and SSM, why should people in NY care?

I take exception with the idea that a piece of parchment can "give power".

However, I agree that people in NY shouldn't have a say about what people in Alabama do. By this same logic, no individual or group should have a say about what any other individual or group does, as long as no one's fundamental rights are being violated. Obviously, this obviates democracy in any form.

It does give power to the various levels of government. Now If I said it gives "rights" you may have a better argument.

And the big "L" Libertarian in you of course sees it that way, but the small "l" libertarian in me sees the ability of people to consent to forms of government, such as we have, in a strict constructional federalist way (to me) of course.

When we say “power”, what is meant? It’s not merely the ability to do something. A document can’t establish that; the ability either exists or it does not.

So the document is trying to establish the right to do something. To accept this document, you must believe that man can create rights (via small-group consensus and writing things down, apparently). The ostensible idea here is not “We don’t have a right to do these things, but we’re going to do them anyway”; it’s “By consent of the governed we do have a right to do these things.”

Government is the claim that some may obtain rights in excess of what others have. Congress may lay and collect taxes, but you may not. And the only things that lay outside the realm of individual rights are individual “wrongs”, i.e. actions that infringe upon the rights of others. Government is literally, by definition, the right to do what is wrong; or license to act immorally.

People cannot change the nature of morality by consent. And especially not when they are “consenting” on behalf of others (an impossibility), which is precisely the situation here, since many do not consent but are made subject to government anyway.

Any moral government would be indistinguishable from any other group of individuals, since rights are equal across all of humanity. So you see that government’s only distinguishing characteristic is immorality, and it must be so in all cases; there is simply no way around this.

The document breaks down the powers given to the Federal government, those given to the States, and those retained by the People.

The rest of your post is basically just wishing reality wasn't reality.

Um... yeah, that doesn't address anything I've said. I've made concrete arguments that you should either refute or accept.

No one is denying the reality of the situation - the document says what it says, and people do what they do - but we're discussing the validity and morality of the situation so we can determine whether or not to support what's going on.

Unless, of course, you don't care about logic or morality, in which case simply admit that and I'll trouble you no further.

No, I don't go for arguments about political systems that would never work in the real world. You can talk about the morality of government all you want, but any proposal you have for a system of civilization without government will never work, or will work in a way you don't expect it.

 

[ChrisL]

Leftists want US to compromise, we know that much. I would like to know exactly what it is THEY would compromise on?

 

[ChrisL]

I take exception with the idea that a piece of parchment can "give power".

However, I agree that people in NY shouldn't have a say about what people in Alabama do. By this same logic, no individual or group should have a say about what any other individual or group does, as long as no one's fundamental rights are being violated. Obviously, this obviates democracy in any form.

It does give power to the various levels of government. Now If I said it gives "rights" you may have a better argument.

And the big "L" Libertarian in you of course sees it that way, but the small "l" libertarian in me sees the ability of people to consent to forms of government, such as we have, in a strict constructional federalist way (to me) of course.

When we say “power”, what is meant? It’s not merely the ability to do something. A document can’t establish that; the ability either exists or it does not.

So the document is trying to establish the right to do something. To accept this document, you must believe that man can create rights (via small-group consensus and writing things down, apparently). The ostensible idea here is not “We don’t have a right to do these things, but we’re going to do them anyway”; it’s “By consent of the governed we do have a right to do these things.”

Government is the claim that some may obtain rights in excess of what others have. Congress may lay and collect taxes, but you may not. And the only things that lay outside the realm of individual rights are individual “wrongs”, i.e. actions that infringe upon the rights of others. Government is literally, by definition, the right to do what is wrong; or license to act immorally.

People cannot change the nature of morality by consent. And especially not when they are “consenting” on behalf of others (an impossibility), which is precisely the situation here, since many do not consent but are made subject to government anyway.

Any moral government would be indistinguishable from any other group of individuals, since rights are equal across all of humanity. So you see that government’s only distinguishing characteristic is immorality, and it must be so in all cases; there is simply no way around this.

The document breaks down the powers given to the Federal government, those given to the States, and those retained by the People.

The rest of your post is basically just wishing reality wasn't reality.

Um... yeah, that doesn't address anything I've said. I've made concrete arguments that you should either refute or accept.

No one is denying the reality of the situation - the document says what it says, and people do what they do - but we're discussing the validity and morality of the situation so we can determine whether or not to support what's going on.

Unless, of course, you don't care about logic or morality, in which case simply admit that and I'll trouble you no further.

No, I don't go for arguments about political systems that would never work in the real world. You can talk about the morality of government all you want, but any proposal you have for a system of civilization without government will never work, or will work in a way you don't expect it.

Well, the bottom line here is that nothing run by human beings will ever be perfect because WE are not perfect and we make mistakes and we become greedy and corrupted, etc., etc., etc. Could we have better than what we have now? Maybe, but there are going to be cons and some unintended consequences in just about everything we do.

 

[martybegan]

It does give power to the various levels of government. Now If I said it gives "rights" you may have a better argument.

And the big "L" Libertarian in you of course sees it that way, but the small "l" libertarian in me sees the ability of people to consent to forms of government, such as we have, in a strict constructional federalist way (to me) of course.

When we say “power”, what is meant? It’s not merely the ability to do something. A document can’t establish that; the ability either exists or it does not.

So the document is trying to establish the right to do something. To accept this document, you must believe that man can create rights (via small-group consensus and writing things down, apparently). The ostensible idea here is not “We don’t have a right to do these things, but we’re going to do them anyway”; it’s “By consent of the governed we do have a right to do these things.”

Government is the claim that some may obtain rights in excess of what others have. Congress may lay and collect taxes, but you may not. And the only things that lay outside the realm of individual rights are individual “wrongs”, i.e. actions that infringe upon the rights of others. Government is literally, by definition, the right to do what is wrong; or license to act immorally.

People cannot change the nature of morality by consent. And especially not when they are “consenting” on behalf of others (an impossibility), which is precisely the situation here, since many do not consent but are made subject to government anyway.

Any moral government would be indistinguishable from any other group of individuals, since rights are equal across all of humanity. So you see that government’s only distinguishing characteristic is immorality, and it must be so in all cases; there is simply no way around this.

The document breaks down the powers given to the Federal government, those given to the States, and those retained by the People.

The rest of your post is basically just wishing reality wasn't reality.

Um... yeah, that doesn't address anything I've said. I've made concrete arguments that you should either refute or accept.

No one is denying the reality of the situation - the document says what it says, and people do what they do - but we're discussing the validity and morality of the situation so we can determine whether or not to support what's going on.

Unless, of course, you don't care about logic or morality, in which case simply admit that and I'll trouble you no further.

No, I don't go for arguments about political systems that would never work in the real world. You can talk about the morality of government all you want, but any proposal you have for a system of civilization without government will never work, or will work in a way you don't expect it.

Well, the bottom line here is that nothing run by human beings will ever be perfect because WE are not perfect and we make mistakes and we become greedy and corrupted, etc., etc., etc. Could we have better than what we have now? Maybe, but there are going to be cons and some unintended consequences in just about everything we do.

This is going back to another discussion me and Brian had. He's a fan of anarchy, but the good kind, which is like the theory of marxism.

Both require non-emotional human automatons to work properly in the real world.

 

[ChrisL]

There is a right or wrong on every issue.

Of course, that isn't true. On some issues we can all agree there is a right and a wrong, but on other issues it's simply a matter of opinion. But convincing yourself that the world is simple and binary certainly does excuse you from having to do the heavy lifting of communicating with others, considering and analyzing other ideas or new ideas, and -- horror of horrors -- occasionally changing your mind or admitting you were wrong.

There is fact, and there is opinion. Two different things.

Wingers confuse fact with opinion because they are intellectually lazy and terribly narcissistic. I'm always right, you're always wrong. I don't want to hear it. I will not even consider anything else. That's it. My side has all the answers. No listening, no thinking, just attacking.

Then they exist in their ideological vacuums, their echo chambers, and harden themselves further to their little worlds. The internet has been great for that.
.

On many issues...we agree there is a problem, and we know what the end result should look like, we just disagree on how to get there.

Are you going to address the topic question?

 

[ChrisL]

Okay, based on your own words, people who are against "collectivists and authoritarians."

Can you think of anyone else who would say that? Me too.

There ya go. If you're a fan of Trump, I believe you'd be comfortable with "Trumpster". Or "Patriot". Or whatever.
.

That's a pretty big "tribe".

It encompasses libertarians, although I don't cotton to libertarians on every issue.

It encompasses Republicrats to one degree or another, but they love them some authority on a lot of issues.

It encompasses even some democrooks, but they haven't pipped up yet for fear of outing themselves.

The "tribes" the OP is about are the DNC and GOP.

Those who side with the GOP only because they're repulsed by the DNC are not a "tribe", their points of view vary far too much. If anything they're "middle of the road".

The democrooks all appear to be far left loons.


.

What I'm seeing is that each party has two primary components. Layers can be found within each, of course, but in general, each has two.

The GOP has the Trump fans and the more traditional Republicans, the people who Trump fans will call RINOs. The Trump fans have taken over the party.

The Democrats have the more traditional liberals and the Regressive Leftists, who are illiberal leftist authoritarians. The Regressives have taken over the party.

The tribal behaviors are most obvious in the Trump fans and the Regressives. It's the old Political Horseshoe theory, in which the ends of the spectrum are closer to each other than they are to the middle. And trying to communicate with either is terribly difficult.
.

Trump fans? Most people voted for Trump as a way to send Washington an important message and because many of his speeches and rhetoric had to do with ACTUAL ISSUES that most Americans are facing, instead of transgender bathrooms, gay rights, abortions, and pandering to illegal immigrants, as the opposition was trying to convince people to vote for her because it was "her turn" and because she has a vagina. Oh, and let's not forget about higher taxes to support all the new "refugees" as well as governmental interference in our constitutional RIGHTS. What a "winning" platform for the thinking person, eh?

 

[Mac1958]

Okay, based on your own words, people who are against "collectivists and authoritarians."

Can you think of anyone else who would say that? Me too.

There ya go. If you're a fan of Trump, I believe you'd be comfortable with "Trumpster". Or "Patriot". Or whatever.
.

That's a pretty big "tribe".

It encompasses libertarians, although I don't cotton to libertarians on every issue.

It encompasses Republicrats to one degree or another, but they love them some authority on a lot of issues.

It encompasses even some democrooks, but they haven't pipped up yet for fear of outing themselves.

The "tribes" the OP is about are the DNC and GOP.

Those who side with the GOP only because they're repulsed by the DNC are not a "tribe", their points of view vary far too much. If anything they're "middle of the road".

The democrooks all appear to be far left loons.


.

What I'm seeing is that each party has two primary components. Layers can be found within each, of course, but in general, each has two.

The GOP has the Trump fans and the more traditional Republicans, the people who Trump fans will call RINOs. The Trump fans have taken over the party.

The Democrats have the more traditional liberals and the Regressive Leftists, who are illiberal leftist authoritarians. The Regressives have taken over the party.

The tribal behaviors are most obvious in the Trump fans and the Regressives. It's the old Political Horseshoe theory, in which the ends of the spectrum are closer to each other than they are to the middle. And trying to communicate with either is terribly difficult.
.

Trump fans? Most people voted for Trump as a way to send Washington an important message and because many of his speeches and rhetoric had to do with ACTUAL ISSUES that most Americans are facing, instead of transgender bathrooms, gay rights, abortions, and pandering to illegal immigrants, as the opposition was trying to convince people to vote for her because it was "her turn" and because she has a vagina. Oh, and let's not forget about higher taxes to support all the new "refugees" as well as governmental interference in our constitutional RIGHTS. What a "winning" platform for the thinking person, eh?

Well, that's a good commercial.
.

 

[ChrisL]

Okay, based on your own words, people who are against "collectivists and authoritarians."

Can you think of anyone else who would say that? Me too.

There ya go. If you're a fan of Trump, I believe you'd be comfortable with "Trumpster". Or "Patriot". Or whatever.
.

That's a pretty big "tribe".

It encompasses libertarians, although I don't cotton to libertarians on every issue.

It encompasses Republicrats to one degree or another, but they love them some authority on a lot of issues.

It encompasses even some democrooks, but they haven't pipped up yet for fear of outing themselves.

The "tribes" the OP is about are the DNC and GOP.

Those who side with the GOP only because they're repulsed by the DNC are not a "tribe", their points of view vary far too much. If anything they're "middle of the road".

The democrooks all appear to be far left loons.


.

What I'm seeing is that each party has two primary components. Layers can be found within each, of course, but in general, each has two.

The GOP has the Trump fans and the more traditional Republicans, the people who Trump fans will call RINOs. The Trump fans have taken over the party.

The Democrats have the more traditional liberals and the Regressive Leftists, who are illiberal leftist authoritarians. The Regressives have taken over the party.

The tribal behaviors are most obvious in the Trump fans and the Regressives. It's the old Political Horseshoe theory, in which the ends of the spectrum are closer to each other than they are to the middle. And trying to communicate with either is terribly difficult.
.

Trump fans? Most people voted for Trump as a way to send Washington an important message and because many of his speeches and rhetoric had to do with ACTUAL ISSUES that most Americans are facing, instead of transgender bathrooms, gay rights, abortions, and pandering to illegal immigrants, as the opposition was trying to convince people to vote for her because it was "her turn" and because she has a vagina. Oh, and let's not forget about higher taxes to support all the new "refugees" as well as governmental interference in our constitutional RIGHTS. What a "winning" platform for the thinking person, eh?

Well, that's a good commercial.
.

So tell me, what was the democrat platform in this last election. What convinced you that you should vote for Hillary exactly?

 

[Mac1958]

Okay, based on your own words, people who are against "collectivists and authoritarians."

Can you think of anyone else who would say that? Me too.

There ya go. If you're a fan of Trump, I believe you'd be comfortable with "Trumpster". Or "Patriot". Or whatever.
.

That's a pretty big "tribe".

It encompasses libertarians, although I don't cotton to libertarians on every issue.

It encompasses Republicrats to one degree or another, but they love them some authority on a lot of issues.

It encompasses even some democrooks, but they haven't pipped up yet for fear of outing themselves.

The "tribes" the OP is about are the DNC and GOP.

Those who side with the GOP only because they're repulsed by the DNC are not a "tribe", their points of view vary far too much. If anything they're "middle of the road".

The democrooks all appear to be far left loons.


.

What I'm seeing is that each party has two primary components. Layers can be found within each, of course, but in general, each has two.

The GOP has the Trump fans and the more traditional Republicans, the people who Trump fans will call RINOs. The Trump fans have taken over the party.

The Democrats have the more traditional liberals and the Regressive Leftists, who are illiberal leftist authoritarians. The Regressives have taken over the party.

The tribal behaviors are most obvious in the Trump fans and the Regressives. It's the old Political Horseshoe theory, in which the ends of the spectrum are closer to each other than they are to the middle. And trying to communicate with either is terribly difficult.
.

Trump fans? Most people voted for Trump as a way to send Washington an important message and because many of his speeches and rhetoric had to do with ACTUAL ISSUES that most Americans are facing, instead of transgender bathrooms, gay rights, abortions, and pandering to illegal immigrants, as the opposition was trying to convince people to vote for her because it was "her turn" and because she has a vagina. Oh, and let's not forget about higher taxes to support all the new "refugees" as well as governmental interference in our constitutional RIGHTS. What a "winning" platform for the thinking person, eh?

Well, that's a good commercial.
.

So tell me, what was the democrat platform in this last election. What convinced you that you should vote for Hillary exactly?

Well, two things.

First, she was closer to me on the issues, which I lay out in the link at the end of the second line of my sig.

Second, I was, and remain, horrified and embarrassed with Trump being our President.

With Hillary as the nominee, I would much rather have voted third party. But I knew that if either Trump or Cruz got the GOP nomination, I'd have to vote for her.
.

 

[ChrisL]

That's a pretty big "tribe".

It encompasses libertarians, although I don't cotton to libertarians on every issue.

It encompasses Republicrats to one degree or another, but they love them some authority on a lot of issues.

It encompasses even some democrooks, but they haven't pipped up yet for fear of outing themselves.

The "tribes" the OP is about are the DNC and GOP.

Those who side with the GOP only because they're repulsed by the DNC are not a "tribe", their points of view vary far too much. If anything they're "middle of the road".

The democrooks all appear to be far left loons.


.

What I'm seeing is that each party has two primary components. Layers can be found within each, of course, but in general, each has two.

The GOP has the Trump fans and the more traditional Republicans, the people who Trump fans will call RINOs. The Trump fans have taken over the party.

The Democrats have the more traditional liberals and the Regressive Leftists, who are illiberal leftist authoritarians. The Regressives have taken over the party.

The tribal behaviors are most obvious in the Trump fans and the Regressives. It's the old Political Horseshoe theory, in which the ends of the spectrum are closer to each other than they are to the middle. And trying to communicate with either is terribly difficult.
.

Trump fans? Most people voted for Trump as a way to send Washington an important message and because many of his speeches and rhetoric had to do with ACTUAL ISSUES that most Americans are facing, instead of transgender bathrooms, gay rights, abortions, and pandering to illegal immigrants, as the opposition was trying to convince people to vote for her because it was "her turn" and because she has a vagina. Oh, and let's not forget about higher taxes to support all the new "refugees" as well as governmental interference in our constitutional RIGHTS. What a "winning" platform for the thinking person, eh?

Well, that's a good commercial.
.

So tell me, what was the democrat platform in this last election. What convinced you that you should vote for Hillary exactly?

Well, two things.

First, she was closer to me on the issues, which I lay out in the link at the end of the second line of my sig.

Second, I was, and remain, horrified and embarrassed with Trump being our President.

With Hillary as the nominee, I would much rather have voted third party. But I knew that if either Trump or Cruz got the GOP nomination, I'd have to vote for her.
.

Abortion
Mac: Pro choice, open to ban on late term abortions
Evan: Pro Life, discontinue fund to PP
Hillary: Pro choice across the board
Jake: Pro choice, agrees with Hillary, maybe not on late term abortions

Health Care
Mac: Expand the Medicare/Medicare Supplement/Medicare Advantage system to all
Evan: Free market
Hillary: ACA or Single Payer
Jake: Single Payer, agrees with Hillary

Immigration
Mac: Legalize 'em, put 'em at end of line for citizenship, seal the borders
Evan: Moderate from GOP side
Hillary: Moderate from Dem side
Jake: Moderate from Dem side, agrees with Hillary

Gay Marriage
Mac: Pro gay marriage
Evan: Anti gay marriage
Hillary: Pro gay marriage
Jake: Pro gay marriage, agrees with Hillary

War/Foreign Policy
Mac: We are not the policeman of the world, get out of the Middle East now
Evan: Thinks America should be a strong global military leader
Hillary: Strong global leadership, strong military
Jake: Appears to agree with Evan, I think

Personal Income Taxes
Mac: Add four new, higher tax margins up to 54.9%, install META (my term, Minimum Effective Tax Rate)
Evan: Maintain or decrease current personal income tax rates
Hillary: Maintain or increase current personal income tax rates
Jake: Agrees with Hillary

Corporate Income Taxes
Mac: Decrease to 15% with a 5% META; two-year tax moratorium on repatriated money
Evan: Decrease current corporate tax rates
Hillary: Maintain current corporate tax rates, cut loopholes
Jake: Agrees with Hillary

Political Correctness
Mac: Virulently anti-PC because it is destructive, cowardly, dishonest and divisive
Evan: Moderately against PC
Hillary: Moderately supports PC
Jake: Very Pro PC, agrees with Hillary

Identity Politics
Mac: Virulently against because it is destructive, cowardly, dishonest and divisive
Evan: Moderately against
Hillary: Embraces whole-heartedly
Jake: Very Pro Identity Politics, agrees with Hillary

Unions
Mac: Need reform; maintain safety standards and current benefits, eliminate inefficient rules and after-work pensions
Evan: Moderately anti-union
Hillary: Embraces unions whole-heartedly
Jake: Agrees with Hillary

Gun Control
Mac: Agree with mainstream Democrat approach of reasonable restrictions and expectations
Evan: Moderately anti-gun control
Hillary: Mainstream Democrat approach
Jake: Agrees with Hillary

Did I miss anything? Was I wrong anywhere?

You mean this post above??? Well, it seems like you disagreed with Hillary on more issues than you agreed with her on, and you voted for a candidate based on abortion.

Oh, I didn't realize you were with "her."