Actually I am pointing out the truth, Conservatives and the very right are different things.
The same can be said about Labor and the Greens, or one nation and the Nationals, just
And too, no matter how unhappy you may be with that truth it remains true.
I can even highlight adopting another party,s policies happens here, NO Labor government would ever let the refugee boats start again,they would not dare offend those who demand it stop.
Cop it sweet America, any county not a dictatorship, has two sides at least in politics, and at times voters swap sides.
Prepare for the midterms, dig your trenches, find your reasons, for a Trump set back powered by the middle and even some, women for sure, in his own party

Belly,
I'm afraid I have to agree with Armchair Critic that you need to reconsider living in the Whitlam/Hawke era. The Labor party that we both supported in '72 is not the Labor party of now.
It is now run by idealist academics, lawyers & insufferable ex Union reps with a really bad accent.
I can not see why you can't see that. I'm in no way implying that the Conservatives are much better but they are slightly more responsible & the recent uphieval showed us that some amongst the conservatives had the guts to stand up against their own & say enough is enough.
That takes guts because politically it could prove to be a suicide mission.
I just hpoe that Morrison has enough integrity to address the issues of Welfare, Immigration & Law. I simply can not envisage Shorten to be a better option. He doesn't even make good promises even though we all know neither party keeps promises anyway.
Personally, I'm too scared of Labor getting in because I'm simply getting too old to keep battling with stupidity that's ruining our lives.

Hi Belly,
First and foremost, citizens supporting the United States Constitution DOES NOT IN ITSELF constitute a move to the right;
I'll repeat it again so that it actually drills home.
First and foremost, citizens supporting the United States Constitution DOES NOT IN ITSELF constitute a move to the right.
What that demonstrates is citizens supporting the rules the nation was founded on;
NOT moving to the right, and NOT moving to the left.

Holding their ground against the continued infringement upon the principles of America's founding, by the march of the left.

Regards the Tea Party, I do watch Ron Paul every now and again, and he's one of the few voices of reason out there on Syria. Do you?
Lets go to Wikipedia.
- I had to go and read up myself you know, because they are such an overwhelmingly powerful movement of the right [sic]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tea_Party

'The movement began following Barack Obama's first presidential inauguration (in January 2009) when his administration announced plans to give financial aid to bankrupt homeowners. A major force behind it was Americans for Prosperity (AFP), a conservative political advocacy group founded by businessmen and political activist David H. Koch.'

So, it as originally a reaction to the lefts march to the left, and towards socialist agendas, but it wasn't originally a grassroots movement as such funded by Koch Brothers any more than George Soros funded 'progressive' movements are grassroots.

What I said earlier;
"My argument would be that any increased solidarity with the right has come as a result of the lefts incessant march towards the left.
The rights stance is a 'reaction' to the lefts increasing irrationality, not a 'progressive movement' like the left itself is."

But let’s look further at what wikipedia says;

'Historian and writer Walter Russell Mead analyzes the foreign policy views of the Tea Party movement in a 2011 essay published in Foreign Affairs. Mead says that Jacksonian populists, such as the Tea Party, combine a belief in American exceptionalism and its role in the world with skepticism of American's "ability to create a liberal world order"

Rather than die down as most disappointments do, the Trump Derangement Syndrome is still growing, the latest vicious campaign from the Democrats being their hysteria over Trump’s nomination of Brett Kavanaugh as a Supreme Court judge. As usual, they found a stool pigeon who suddenly 'remembered’ being sexually assaulted by the man 30 odd years ago. He denies it; people present at the time deny it, but the truth means nothing to the Left. They have something they call 'your truth’, which really means that it's whatever lie that suits their current conniving.

The Democrats were determined to find ways to block whoever Trump nominated because they knew it wouldn't be a slippery left activist who liked making laws to suit the Left, rather than interpreting existing laws. U.S. judges have 'rights’ like nothing we know in this country.

A bunch of leftist harpies calling themselves ‘Women’s March” had, it has been discovered, a pre-prepared statement stating: “In response to Donald Trump’s nomination of XX to the Supreme Court of the United States, the Women’s March released the following statement,” read the start of an email from the feminist group.

The statement was pre-written, with the name only added in after the nominee was learned by the public, in the xx spot. And the harpies were definitely not going to accept a Trump nomination no matter who it was. All they had to do was to invent some scandal to match tha person.

There are probably some decent Democrats, but it is the scum of the earth variety, which is anti-democratic and fascist, that is running the show in America.

[Cont]
When necessary, they favor 'total war' and unconditional surrender over "limited wars for limited goals". Mead identifies two main trends, one personified by former Texas Congressman Ron Paul and the other by former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin. "Paulites" have a Jeffersonian approach that seeks to avoid foreign military involvement. "Palinites", while seeking to avoid being drawn into unnecessary conflicts, favor a more aggressive response to maintaining America's primacy in international relations. Mead says that both groups share a distaste for "liberal internationalism".[46]

Some Tea Party-affiliated Republicans, such as Michele Bachmann, Jeff Duncan, Connie Mack IV, Jeff Flake, Tim Scott, Joe Walsh, Allen West, and Jason Chaffetz, voted for progressive Congressman Dennis Kucinich's resolution to withdraw U.S. military personnel from Libya.[47] In the Senate, three Tea Party backed Republicans, Jim DeMint, Mike Lee and Michael Crapo, voted to limit foreign aid to Libya, Pakistan and Egypt.[48] Tea Partiers in both houses of Congress have shown willingness to cut foreign aid. Most leading figures within the Tea Party both within and outside Congress opposed military intervention in Syria.'

Don’t forget Palin was John McCain (who loved the M/E wars and help start them) running mate.
Also the Three Amigo's McCain, Lindsay, Lieberman who were FOR the Pro-Isreal wars.
In this context, you might see the Ron Paul Camp as Constitutionalists who DO NOT support 'US Exceptionalism' and OPPOSE US M/E Wars; which ARE supported by neoconservatives.
- Also Trump opposed US intervention in Syria.

When you say move to the right, I think of a move from right to far-right like Aryan Brotherhood Neo-Nazi type stuff.
The Tea Party do not support this, and Trump's campaign was funded in part by (Pro-Israel) Sheldon Adelson.
Linking him to support of Neo-Nazi's is going to be a tall order, so your allegation that the right moves further to the right (ie. far-right) truly baffles me.
What is it that you mean exactly when you say the right is moving farther to the right, what are the issues you refer to?

Hey Philip S
"Firstly in my opinion he is making a comment about something. he is not stating a point that requires absolute proof, it is just his opinion."

Well I disagree.
Belly opened with "Can the right continue to travel even further right? if they do can American then remain a Democracy?"

He made a claim first, and then asked a question based upon that prior claim.
Before you can respond to the question, you must first test the validity of the claim.
Belly certainly appears to be laying the blame for claimed 'destruction of democracy' at the feet of the right.
Do you disagree with my rationality?

Also I might also point out that I fundamentally disagree that a forum members 'Opening Statement and Question' that starts every new thread is a 'comment'.

'Comments' come afterwards, and run secondary to the opening statement.
That's where other forum members get a chance to respond to the assertions made in the opening statement, question the points that were made, or give further insight into the issue or simply hold a general opinion on what was first stated.

"What you put in quotation marks are two questions, so what do you want him to prove?"

According to Grammarly quotation marks are for when you want to use someone else’s words in your writing, just as I've done now quoting you.
Here's the link to if you wish to find out more:
http://www.grammarly.com/blog/quotation-marks/

Personally I don't really care so much about grammar and punctuation as a component of language as much as I value the abilty to share and convey ideas and understand other peoples points of view.

QUOTE>>Secondly You provide a youtube link and state "These are the facts about Leftists and Liberalism." They are only the opinions of Dennis Prager the person in the video.<<

[You see that, sometimes I will change the way I quote; which I did because your statement already contained quotation marks.]