Did the left lose election after election after election because of being overly PC?

[BigDH01]

As an example, I have a young cousin, truck guy, lives in a small town in the middle of nowhere. As of late he is hardcore right, the things he posts on FB, just demonizes anything and anyone on the left. It is the very fringe of the left that he is looking at, the extreme, but in his mind that represent the left largely on the whole. I'm saying both sides do this, create exaggerated views of what the other side wants and is about, then fights that caricature.

A FB friend of mine posted one of those conservative tough guy music videos where he takes down a liberal caricature who's wearing glasses, pink outfit, etc (while he drives his truck showing off his muscles). Typical politics. Then I started thinking about how the left might make a video where they attack a caricature of the right. The caricature would be narcissistic, authoritarian, blowhard, always-persecuted, and ignorant. Who does that sound like? The thing about the liberal caricature is that it's just that. Most elected democrats aren't really "pussies", least of which is Hillary Clinton. Sure, she may not have been a good person and may have had some bad policy stances, but if anything I think people saw her as too calculating and "bitchy." The right has actually elected their caricature as president. The left doesn't have to fabricate a straw man anymore.

 

[Victorian Gray]

I think so. I agree with Bill Maher here. The right has plenty of legit issues that could be called out as well, but the left seems to have jumped the shark as of late with how PC everything has become. I think it turns off moderate voters.

Bill Maher on the overly PC left.

You're talking about the United States? Then I have to ask, what "left"?

 

[SlowSpyder]

I don't like this attempt to "both sides" the complaints.

The right, like you said, was hinging on junk conspiracy theories: Obama wasn't born in the US, Obama's a terrorist, death panels and all that. It was based more on latent (and sometimes overt) racism and the "whatever they're for we're against" mindset. To many of them, the scariest thing in the world is a black left-wing President with a foreign-sounding name.

On the left... well, a lot of the panic comes from things Trump is actually saying and doing. Stripping protections from LGBT people. Immigration bans that are really just thinly-veiled pretexts for bigotry. A disconcerting reluctance to condemn racism, including that attempt to "both sides" Charlottesville. And then there's what happened just today, where Trump was genuinely annoyed by the concept of free speech: why does the press get to write what it likes, and why can't I shut down NBC's license for daring to criticize me?

So while there is such a thing as undue panic on the left, I'd say there's much more meat to its concerns than what the right has mustered so far. If Trump could, he'd genuinely try for an autocracy that pushes women and minorities to the margins.

I don't see Trump in as negative of a light I guess. I think a lot of what you just said, as an example, is exaggerated or taken in a way that it obviously wasn't meant. I can understand why he removed trans from the military, from what I saw the cost to accommodate them was out of whack with the average soldier by a lot. I agree the immigration ban probably has some ethnic overtones to it, but for those that argue against guns, what is the argument for bring more people from that part of the world here? From what I've seen, and feel free to provide sources that show otherwise - I could have seen tainted info, there are problems with a much higher percentage of people from that part of the world. Regarding Charlottesville, from what I've seen, both sides were full of garbage people, there weren't decent people on either side. The NBC thing is new, and I haven't seen the details. If what you say is correct, then Trump is wrong. Luckily he doesn't have the power to do anything of the such. But, again I haven't really seen the details on that one yet.

 

[dank69]

I didn't even see the question by him to be honest. I went back, "what is the leftist vision"? Why even ask? Do I really need to answer this? The right creates a vision of stereotypes that becomes the left to them, the left does the same to the right.

As an example, I have a young cousin, truck guy, lives in a small town in the middle of nowhere. As of late he is hardcore right, the things he posts on FB, just demonizes anything and anyone on the left. It is the very fringe of the left that he is looking at, the extreme, but in his mind that represent the left largely on the whole. I'm saying both sides do this, create exaggerated views of what the other side wants and is about, then fights that caricature.

You said:

... Either I agree 100% with the leftist vision or I'm insulted. ...

This implies that you know what the leftist vision is. When you use the word vision like this, it doesn't mean "how leftists see current events," it usually means "how leftists want the country to be." What you seem to have meant is that if you don't agree with the leftist perspective, you are insulted.

The reality though is that I didn't insult you because you disagree with my perspective. I isulted you because I have exactly zero patience for retards anymore. It was all fun and games until you fucking maggots put Donald Fucking Trump in the goddamned White House. You have a President robbing the treasury blind right under your stupid nose and all you can focus on is what you think is PC or not. You might as well tune your TV to the fucking Kardashians and superglue your eyeballs to the screen.

 

[dank69]

I don't even know why I come here. 90% of the posts in this forum are the same 5 nazis and 50 marxists lobbing this useless shit at each other. It's funny because every once in a while a semi-political post pops up in OT with an entirely different crowd responding and a few insightful posts actually manage to form.

There is no more time for patience and rational discussion with conservatives is literally impossible at this point in time. Of course, that statement makes me a radical leftist because it can't possibly be true. Let's all compromise and try more trickle down.

 

[VRAMdemon]

And yet, we have Trump & Co telling people how to be "patriotic" by telling them how to honor the flag. That seems "PC" to me...

 

[UberNeuman]

I don't see Trump in as negative of a light I guess. I think a lot of what you just said, as an example, is exaggerated or taken in a way that it obviously wasn't meant. I can understand why he removed trans from the military, from what I saw the cost to accommodate them was out of whack with the average soldier by a lot. I agree the immigration ban probably has some ethnic overtones to it, but for those that argue against guns, what is the argument for bring more people from that part of the world here? From what I've seen, and feel free to provide sources that show otherwise - I could have seen tainted info, there are problems with a much higher percentage of people from that part of the world. Regarding Charlottesville, from what I've seen, both sides were full of garbage people, there weren't decent people on either side. The NBC thing is new, and I haven't seen the details. If what you say is correct, then Trump is wrong. Luckily he doesn't have the power to do anything of the such. But, again I haven't really seen the details on that one yet.

Justification and Denial all in one package. It’s the libertarian way.

 

[fskimospy]

I think Trump does more to invite valid criticism. I also think the left still largely exaggerates the reality of what Trump says, what he stands for. I know legit legal American citizens of Mexican decent that were absolutely sure they were getting deported after the election, as an example.


Should Hillary be in jail for her email situation? Y/N I vote "N" by the way, but many on the right disagree. I hadn't seen anything that made me think Trump did anything illegal, but the left is happy to pick up and run with that the same as Hillary and email from the right.

Of course Clinton shouldn't be in jail for her email situation, the FBI looked into it and found no reason to even attempt to prosecute her, much less convict her of anything. The fact that Republicans kept going after her on it long after that happened shows what a witch hunt it was. In fact, that was all related to the Benghazi hearings, for which Congress spent more time investigating than either Pearl Harbor or 9/11. These investigations continued despite the vehement objections of the minority party, precisely because it was a witch hunt.

Contrast that to Trump. There is really only one congressional investigation into this and it is supported by both parties. The FBI was/is investigating his ties to Russia but after Trump fired the person investigating him for not personally going out and exonerating him a special prosecutor was appointed. Far from being a witch hunt it would be insane to NOT keep investigating this until the proper authorities can reach a conclusion, wouldn't you agree?

Can you explain how you would possibly equate these two things? It's false equivalence like this that is so incredibly dangerous as it lets the people who really do engage in these sort of witch hunts pay no price for their actions. When/if America ever really does slide into fascism or collapse or whatever it kills me to know that there will be plenty of people saying 'BOTH SIDES!' right up to the end.

 

[bshole]

Their is a HUGE shift in ultra-partisan politics. The right has been shifting *HARD* right for the last 10-15 years. See: Tea Party. The left is slowly sliding left. When people on the left don't like something their party is doing they either don't vote or will vote 3rd party. On the right, they fall in line, plug their nose and vote down the party line. The right side politics is getting torn in two. Look at the division between establishment GOP and what Bannon/Mercer is trying to do. They are trying to pull a mini-coup on the US government. Many GOP voters either don't know, or don't care and the rest are just in the "Give me muh librul tears" side of spite voting and vote whoever has R in front of their name. Bernie bros wouldn't do the same.

If that were true, why did Republican support for gay marriage move from 33 to 43 percent between 2001-2015? If they were shifting hard right I would expect there to be declining support for gay marriage, not increasing. Actually pew is even more striking with shift in conservative acceptance of gay marriage moving from 18% to 41%.

http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

 

[Commodus]

I don't see Trump in as negative of a light I guess. I think a lot of what you just said, as an example, is exaggerated or taken in a way that it obviously wasn't meant. I can understand why he removed trans from the military, from what I saw the cost to accommodate them was out of whack with the average soldier by a lot. I agree the immigration ban probably has some ethnic overtones to it, but for those that argue against guns, what is the argument for bring more people from that part of the world here? From what I've seen, and feel free to provide sources that show otherwise - I could have seen tainted info, there are problems with a much higher percentage of people from that part of the world. Regarding Charlottesville, from what I've seen, both sides were full of garbage people, there weren't decent people on either side. The NBC thing is new, and I haven't seen the details. If what you say is correct, then Trump is wrong. Luckily he doesn't have the power to do anything of the such. But, again I haven't really seen the details on that one yet.

According to at least one study, homegrown (and frequently white) terrorism is the greater threat in the US, even in recent years. As horrific as 9/11 and San Bernardino were, they're in the minority; most attacks are conducted by neo-Nazis and extremist anti-government types. So the threat isn't people from "that part of the world" -- it's the people who are already here, in some cases those who've been here for centuries.

As it is, there's a simple reason why you'd bring more people over from the Middle East: for humanitarian reasons. Many of those immigrants, especially from war-torn places like Syria, are coming over for a chance at a new life. Yeah, make sure you're not allowing in extremists (while respecting civil rights), but don't simply assume that everyone coming from a given country is a ticking time bomb.

And on Charlottesville, you're equivocating. Yeah, the people who instigated violence on any side are problems. But here's the thing: most of the violence was instigated by neo-Nazis... and, well, they're neo-Nazis. Every single one of them is garbage by virtue of their beliefs. And most of the counter-protesters were, in fact, decent people. I'm not condoning Antifa or anyone else who started fights, but Antifa certainly wasn't the one running protesters over with a car.

If you'd like that example of Trump's hatred of free speech (particularly freedom of the press), here you go.

 

[ivwshane]

If that were true, why did Republican support for gay marriage move from 33 to 43 percent between 2001-2015? If they were shifting hard right I would expect there to be declining support for gay marriage, not increasing. Actually pew is even more striking with shift in conservative acceptance of gay marriage moving from 18% to 41%.

http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

Did you just try and conflate a single issue with the broader movement?

 

[brycejones]

This thread LOL given the right's freak out and demand for safe spaces over players kneeling before a song.

 

[bshole]

Did you just try and conflate a single issue with the broader movement?

I am looking for quantifiable data about shifts to the right and what that would exactly entail. Conservative acceptance of gay marriage is a significant shift to the left for them. I see also that their acceptance of legalized pot is growing as well, another shift to the left.

If there are shifts to the right, what are the issues that they are shifting to the right on and what poll numbers indicate that shift?

 

[Snarf Snarf]

Just a point of fact but Democrats actually have policies, both talked about and either implemented or tried to be implemented. See the ACA, plus a willingness to fix is issues even if that means working with Republicans, see the immigration reform bill that was passed under Democratic control of the senate in 2013 that was killed in the house by Republicans, see Democrats and their willingness to talk to and negotiate with "enemies" (such as the Iran nuclear deal) and the TPP.

So Democrats are doing exactly what you'd wish they would do. The problem, as your post so clearly illustrates, is that the Democrats clearly either don't have a good message or they aren't good at getting their messaging out to those that need to see it (like you).

I'm curious though, where do you get your news from? Facebook? Other social media? News papers? Online news? TV? News aggregate websites/apps? From your peers?

For clarification I did not say that I thought Democrats have done nothing but that they aren't doing enough from 2016 to present. I admit I'm highly critical of my own party, but it comes from a place of desire to reach a better place for this country.

I agree the message and the means of getting out are fairly weak when you've got the propaganda machine that is conservative media outlets on overdrive 24/7. At a certain level I understand the desire to avoid a shouting match with Fox News etc because it doesn't accomplish much more than what they are currently doing (spending way more time bashing Trump than talking about possible policy.) Whether this is a failing on the other media outlets, or of the Democratic leadership not wanting to control the narrative I couldn't say, but there is a definite disconnect going on right now.

My news? I typically get from BBC or NYT, sometimes I watch CNN but mostly with my mom since she prefers to watch it over other news channels.

From the same place RetardSpyder gets his news: his colon.

I'm not your enemy, friend. Nor do I agree with Spyder on 99% of his views.

 

[fskimospy]

I am looking for quantifiable data about shifts to the right and what that would exactly entail. Conservative acceptance of gay marriage is a significant shift to the left for them. I see also that their acceptance of legalized pot is growing as well, another shift to the left.

If there are shifts to the right, what are the issues that they are shifting to the right on and what poll numbers indicate that shift?

As I have linked on here many times here's their first dimension DW-NOMINATE score, which is a measure that exists to show shifts in congressional ideology over time. +1 is max conservative and -1 is max liberal. Since 1975 the Democrats have gone from a -0.3 or so to a -0.4, so a moderate shift to the left of -0.1. The Republicans on the other hand have gone from a +0.2 to a +0.7 or so, which is a HUGE shift to the right.

Also think about this in a gut check way. When John Boehner was elected to the House in the early 90's he was considered an extreme right wing Republican. He was recently effectively overthrown in the House a few years back because he was unacceptably liberal.

 

[Stokely]

I'm no big fan of "the Left" or the Democrats, but I'd argue their big problem is that they don't lie as well as the GOP.

Trump told out-of-work rural voters a load of horseshit that happened to be what they wanted to hear, and it won him the election. You didn't hear him mention "automation" once I'd wager. Nor did he mention things like fracking killing the coal industry. He basically just came out with "I'll make things great" and "I'll get rid of all those evil regulations." You know, like the ones that try to prevent companies from dumping toxic waste into streams, killing the people working the mines (though not so fast that he'd be around to worry about it of course).

 

[BigDH01]

My news? I typically get from BBC or NYT, sometimes I watch CNN but mostly with my mom since she prefers to watch it over other news channels.

When I was younger and during the height of Iraq 2, I picked out news stories about firefights between American soldiers and insurgents. I found that American media would report the lowest numbers of US dead and Al Jazeera the highest numbers. The BBC was usually somewhere between. I got most of my news during that war from the BBC.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Let's put this in a slightly different light: the Democrats have won the popular vote in every election but one since 1988. Does that sound like a party that's turning off voters by being too PC to you or does that sound like a party that has problems with how elections are structured?

I mean isn't it a bit weird to wonder about the appeal of a party that a large plurality of Americans identify with, which generally wins the most votes?

That sounds like a party that's consolidated it's power into concentrated areas of group think, and in doing so, lost site of the broader ground game. Rallying the troops in areas of the country already receptive to your message is not a plurality so much as it is herding sheep.

Look how long it took Clinton to release a statement condemning Weinstein. Democrats repeatedly get paralyzed by PC identity politics, purity tests and their own indeciveness.

This does not mean I advocate what the Republicans are doing, but I don't find it weird at all.

Yes there is an electoral structure element to it, but Obama didn't seem to have that problem because he offered a compelling universal message. Clinton, Gore, Kerry...these candidates failed to inspire and were easy targets for the Republican smear machine.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

I think so. I agree with Bill Maher here. The right has plenty of legit issues that could be called out as well, but the left seems to have jumped the shark as of late with how PC everything has become. I think it turns off moderate voters.

Bill Maher on the overly PC left.

Nope he's wrong although i'll give him credit for a 1/4 clue. I really doubt if a single lefty dipshit in the forum is going to watch the clip and see what Maher actually says.

 

[SlowSpyder]

You said:


This implies that you know what the leftist vision is. When you use the word vision like this, it doesn't mean "how leftists see current events," it usually means "how leftists want the country to be." What you seem to have meant is that if you don't agree with the leftist perspective, you are insulted.

The reality though is that I didn't insult you because you disagree with my perspective. I isulted you because I have exactly zero patience for retards anymore. It was all fun and games until you fucking maggots put Donald Fucking Trump in the goddamned White House. You have a President robbing the treasury blind right under your stupid nose and all you can focus on is what you think is PC or not. You might as well tune your TV to the fucking Kardashians and superglue your eyeballs to the screen.

Look at the post below. Of course Clinton is a political witch hunt (I agree), but absolutely impossible that Trump was being investigated during an election for political reasons, nah, its totally legit. The leftist vision, this forum.

Of course Clinton shouldn't be in jail for her email situation, the FBI looked into it and found no reason to even attempt to prosecute her, much less convict her of anything. The fact that Republicans kept going after her on it long after that happened shows what a witch hunt it was. In fact, that was all related to the Benghazi hearings, for which Congress spent more time investigating than either Pearl Harbor or 9/11. These investigations continued despite the vehement objections of the minority party, precisely because it was a witch hunt.

Contrast that to Trump. There is really only one congressional investigation into this and it is supported by both parties. The FBI was/is investigating his ties to Russia but after Trump fired the person investigating him for not personally going out and exonerating him a special prosecutor was appointed. Far from being a witch hunt it would be insane to NOT keep investigating this until the proper authorities can reach a conclusion, wouldn't you agree?

Can you explain how you would possibly equate these two things? It's false equivalence like this that is so incredibly dangerous as it lets the people who really do engage in these sort of witch hunts pay no price for their actions. When/if America ever really does slide into fascism or collapse or whatever it kills me to know that there will be plenty of people saying 'BOTH SIDES!' right up to the end.

Comey was put in his position by Obama. I wouldn't trust some posters I've seen here investigating me. You only see what you want to see. If we do collapse, it'll be the blind overly partisan types that make that happen.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Nope he's wrong although i'll give him credit for a 1/4 clue. I really doubt if a single lefty dipshit in the forum is going to watch the clip and see what Maher actually says.

I'm sure I'm talking to people that haven't watched it, they have partisan positions to defend at any cost.

 

[bshole]

As I have linked on here many times here's their first dimension DW-NOMINATE score, which is a measure that exists to show shifts in congressional ideology over time. +1 is max conservative and -1 is max liberal. Since 1975 the Democrats have gone from a -0.3 or so to a -0.4, so a moderate shift to the left of -0.1. The Republicans on the other hand have gone from a +0.2 to a +0.7 or so, which is a HUGE shift to the right.

Also think about this in a gut check way. When John Boehner was elected to the House in the early 90's he was considered an extreme right wing Republican. He was recently effectively overthrown in the House a few years back because he was unacceptably liberal.

There is a problem with labels I think, that is why I posted specific examples. On foreign policy, I think all parties are sheering wildly to the far far right. The left appear to cheer lead our overseas butchery as much as the right. Domestically, I think most people are shifting to the left.... including the right. More and more right wingers are supportive of single payer for example. I am excluding the fringe alr-right of course. For confirmation bias I went to the Atlantic who published this...

That doesn’t mean the Republicans won’t retain strength in the nation’s statehouses and in Congress. It doesn’t mean a Republican won’t sooner or later claim the White House. It means that on domestic policy—foreign policy is following a different trajectory, as it often does—the terms of the national debate will continue tilting to the left. The next Democratic president will be more liberal than Barack Obama. The next Republican president will be more liberal than George W. Bush.

This is even true among Republican Millennials. The press often depicts American politics as a battle pitting ever more liberal Democrats against ever more conservative Republicans. Among the young, however, that’s inaccurate. Young Democrats may be more liberal than their elders, but so are young Republicans. According to Pew, a clear majority of young Republicans say immigrants strengthen America, half say corporate profits are too high, and almost half say stricter environmental laws are worth the cost—answers that sharply distinguish them from older members of the GOP. Young Republicans are more likely to favor legalizing marijuana than the oldest Democrats, and almost as likely to support gay marriage. Asked how they categorize themselves ideologically, more than two-thirds of Republican Millennials call themselves either “liberal” or “mixed,” while fewer than one-third call themselves “conservative.” Among the oldest Republicans, that breakdown is almost exactly reversed.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/01/why-america-is-moving-left/419112/

 

[Thebobo]

Anyone who is tempted to take anything Bill Maher says seriously should read this.

https://www.pastemagazine.com/artic...maher-lost-his-teeth-and-became-a-parrot.html

One obscure article? I watch him every week I don't see him as a hawk at all. He seems serious to me. Seemed to be in a bad mood last week, seemed a little off. To much weed or not enough.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm sure I'm talking to people that haven't watched it, they have partisan positions to defend at any cost.

I watched it. The most important part is at 5:15 into it. As Maher says, the rest of it doesn't really matter.

You & Taj apparently don't agree with that central point.

 

[fskimospy]

Look at the post below. Of course Clinton is a political witch hunt (I agree), but absolutely impossible that Trump was being investigated during an election for political reasons, nah, its totally legit. The leftist vision, this forum.

There is no evidence that Trump was being investigated during the election. There is evidence his associates were being investigated, but those investigations predated the campaign. Did Obama somehow know Trump was going to pick Paul Manafort and Carter Page ahead of time? Considering that Mueller is likely to indict Manafort for some of the things he was under investigation for then is Mueller in on it too? Talk about seeing what you want to see.

Also you’ve switched from the investigation of Trump being a political witch hunt to a claim of a sitting president using the FBI to attack his political enemies, an extraordinary accusation of criminal behavior by Obama, based on nothing. Is this how desperate we are for false equivalence?

Comey was put in his position by Obama. I wouldn't trust some posters I've seen here investigating me. You only see what you want to see. If we do collapse, it'll be the blind overly partisan types that make that happen.

Comey was a registered republican who was previously appointed as a US attorney and to a position senior to FBI director (Deputy AG) by George W. Bush. The idea that Comey was some sort of Obama’s loyalist is lunacy. The FBI director is also appointed to ten year terms specifically so that presidents don’t fire them when they undertake politically inconvenient investigations.

I mean think how far off the deep end we are going now where a lifelong Republican double GWB appointee is now some crazed leftist partisan.