Oh, the commie card. I call bullshit.

Now the fascism part we're seeing that actually move forward in real time, so you get half a point.

> Oh, the commie card. I call bullshit.

Had Sanders been elected, I am confident we would be talking about the marxist administration instead of the fascist administration. Hillary? Not so much.

Not we. You would have been talking about the marxist administration.

Just what is marxist about his platform?

As much as I hate the two party system, it does force moderation (generally) on both sides. Democratic senators running for office can't climb on a rooftop and scream "I'm gonna take away all your guns!" Nor can a republican shout "Ban all muslims!" Wait, no, sorry nevermind.

The irony here is no Democrats want to take away any guns. Most Democratic proposals have been along the lines of stricter background checks. Republicans - elected officials - really are calling for blanket Muslim bans.

  no Democrats want to take away any guns.

Oh, yes they have. Heck, Dianne Feinstein went on 60 Minutes advocating door-to-door collection, lamenting the Constitutional barriers to doing so.

> The irony here is no Democrats want to take away any guns.

I don't believe this. I know too many democrats who believe that the 2nd amendment is obsolete and that guns should not be owned by civilians (or even normal police officers).

> Most Democratic proposals have been along the lines of stricter background checks.

Right, because that is the maximum amount of legislation that is even possible to get passed. Outright ban of guns would get shot down (so to speak) from the outset. If and when stricter background check legislation passes, will Democrats rest easy on gun issues? No. They will introduce more and more, progressing inch by inch until our gun laws are similar to UK or Japan.

I'm glad you can see into the minds of these Democratic legislators and know what they really want to do in their heart of hearts. It must be easy making the "Both Sides Do It"(TM) argument when you can quote one side and then just imagine something equally bad for the other side to have said.

>They will introduce more and more

Do you have a source for this or are you speculating?

> Do you have a source for this or are you speculating?

Yeah I have a source - Maryland. The bluest state, posterboy of the Democratic platform. We have the strictest gun laws in the country, and the Democrats are never happy. 3 years ago we had significant new restrictions introduced to restrict gun ownership, way more restrictive than any other state. It's all but impossible for normal civilians to get CCP and Maryland does not respect CCPs of any other state.

I think, more simply, most members of both parties push to increase their own power. It wasn't supposed to work that way. The Federal government was supposed to be limited to a few, specific enumerated powers. But there's too much power in the free-for-all do-anything control-everything leviathan it's become.

You'll never stop the corruption until the power is taken away, i.e., more carefully checked and balanced, and where appropriate, cut back.

Everything should be controlled at the smallest, most local level possible, not the largest.

even if I accept that, my point is that one side has come much closer to facism than the other has marxism.

Or fine, if you don't agree with that even, my point is simply why just hand-waive that it's the same. Let's discuss if the republicans have moved too close to facism without mentioning the democrats who are out of power and aren't a factor in this particular topic.