It reminds me of what he hates about conservatives. We become what we fear and hate.
It reminds me of what he hates about conservatives. We become what we fear and hate.So teach the kids not to play with matches by letting them burn down the house?
Caring about minorities if they lost by tha message you care about everyone in need.Until the Democrats learn to simplistically lie about every single issue, telling people what they want to hear in simple populist fashion--they'll lose elections. That was proven last year.
Unfortunately for me, I'll lose a big reason that I vote for them in the first place if they do.
I don't know the answer either...but I fear that emotions must run dry before we can even begin to constructively start discussing this subject. Lots of hard feelings out there...and the incessant hysteria isn't helping one iota.Or death panels.
I do not know the answer to healthcare, but it seems like an issue that can be addressed by rational intelligent minds. In the US, it's a political football. A rational plan that is tested and proven to be economically sound would put an end to the conservative criticism that liberals can't manage money. I think it is a requirement for any who want to be progressive.
The swing voters are every bit as stupid as conservatives, and most of them have been successfully conditioned to hate liberals the same way conservatives have. They are mostly just conservatives disillusioned with the GOP, so it takes a lot more to get them to pull a D lever than an R lever. Any excuse and they RUN back to their abusive husband.A wise person once said - about 5 minutes ago - this:
Like you said, they'll find a way to blame us no matter what. The question is, what audience does it play to outside their hardcore base?
The populace doesn't fit neatly into two camps. There are actual swing voters in this country. People who voted for Obama and then Trump, for example. I think the behavior of people on the left does matter to many of those people. And elections can turn on very narrow margins. We need to block their worst policies, because polling shows that these policies are unpopular, including with a majority of independents and even among a chunk of those who consider themselves conservative (likely center-right). Why would we not act to block policies which 60-70% of the people oppose? Ending DACA is a perfect example.
And we need to clean up our own behavior. What good does it do to call out the right for tolerating so much bullshit from their own (e.g. Trump himself) when we're doing the same thing with our own bullshit?
I don't know what to think about liberals these days...such a mixed bag. But overall...I mostly see hysteria.
The idea that Hillary's message "wasn't inclusive enough" is just more bullshit started by the GOP and parroted by brain dead conservatives. Here's a challenge: see how many quotes you can find from Hillary's campaign that you would classify as not inclusive enough, or better yet, outright divisive. The biggest one I can think of is the "basket of deplorables," which in context specifically contained anyone who was at least one of the following:You make so much more sense, in my opinion. If the right is going to blame the left for everything, there are two options. One is to understand those attacks are motivated by feelings that have irrational roots and deal with that motivation. That will be made easier by delivering a more inclusive message.
Thanks for your concern.Valiant effort...but I fear it wasted.
We aren't talking about kids and the house is already ablaze. The "kids" have already survived several trips to the burn unit but are currently dousing themselves in gasoline while we liberals stand around in our fire gear trying to help them like the suckers we are. Any effort to help is met with complete resistance and a propensity to attempt to damage our safety gear. We aren't dragging anyone out of this fire until they are rendered unconscious at a minimum. Sucks a lot of innocent people are going to get hurt but there is nothing we can do about that now.So teach the kids not to play with matches by letting them burn down the house?
No he was right. See how much more valid my opinion was.........And he's wrong.
You have options. You can try or you can share in the death wish. Sorry, but you are not dealing in facts but how those facts affect you. You have a bad attitude. It's as simple as that.We aren't talking about kids and the house is already ablaze. The "kids" have already survived several trips to the burn unit but are currently dousing themselves in gasoline while we liberals stand around in our fire gear trying to help them like the suckers we are. Any effort to help is met with complete resistance and a propensity to attempt to damage our safety gear. We aren't dragging anyone out of this fire until they are rendered unconscious at a minimum. Sucks a lot of innocent people are going to get hurt but there is nothing we can do about that now.
It's actually the opposite. They are obstructionists of our agenda. I am advocating letting them implement their agenda 100%.It reminds me of what he hates about conservatives. We become what we fear and hate.
Trying has actually set us back further than where we started, so yeah, I have a bad attitude. No arguments there.You have options. You can try or you can share in the death wish. Sorry, but you are not dealing in facts but how those facts affect you. You have a bad attitude. It's as simple as that.
Great efforts are being made in our society to inform and protect battered wives from spousal abuse. It's done by liberals. Some still run back but the situation is improving. But go sit on your hands. You need more grieving. You hit a bump and your reaction is to turn tail and run. You are a smart guy, a disappointed lover who can learn to love again. I fully support your bellyaching. I have just known for decades that people hate themselves and it's self destructive. I've done a whole lot of crying myself. Love you.The swing voters are every bit as stupid as conservatives, and most of them have been successfully conditioned to hate liberals the same way conservatives have. They are mostly just conservatives disillusioned with the GOP, so it takes a lot more to get them to pull a D lever than an R lever. Any excuse and they RUN back to their abusive husband.
The idea that Hillary's message "wasn't inclusive enough" is just more bullshit started by the GOP and parroted by brain dead conservatives.
The link below expresses the opinion that the left is in danger of going to a very bad place. Do you thing this is typical right wing hysteria intended to generate or maintain right wing paranoia and keep them in the fold, or is it a warning to Democrats by a sympathizer that the party really is in danger, or do you think in either case it's bull shit and the party is not in any such danger?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...rid_collaborative_2_na&utm_term=.446f1d498ec2
guess you got your answer moonbeam
This is all essentially correct. However, don't expect to convince other liberals of this. There are three essential categories of liberals: those who are the authoritarians you describe, those who are openly against the authoritarians you describe, and the rest of them, who tolerate the authoritarians even if they aren't authoritarian themselves. This last group is the largest IMO. At the moment, it seems difficult to get through to them. Anger over Trump is likely the largest factor. In this climate, few liberals seem intent on curbing the excesses of the authoritarian left.
That said, I don't agree with everything in that article. A lot of it is prediction, grounded in present reality, but only to a point. He's also failing to distinguish between things like single payer healthcare and extreme identity politics. There might be reasons that one is more desirable than the other. But the author's own political viewpoint, which I would divine as center or center right, is causing him to see them as basically the same. While one is divisive and problematic, the other is... mainstream throughout the entire industrialized world save the US. In my view, it's hardly a radical idea.
The only disaster I see is if Democrats surrender to their own regressive voices. There is nothing wrong with "left wing" economic policy, especially if one considers themselves Democrat or Progressive. So I don't believe the author of that article is speaking from within the party. He is an outsider wanting them to play nice and play for the center. Essentially begging us not to take advantage of Trump's destruction of the GOP. !@#$ that, I say to Democrats... take the ball and run. Give the people a New Deal and end this farce we call modern American politics.
Trump is a golden opportunity. Grab it by the p!@#$.
The swing voters are every bit as stupid as conservatives, and most of them have been successfully conditioned to hate liberals the same way conservatives have. They are mostly just conservatives disillusioned with the GOP, so it takes a lot more to get them to pull a D lever than an R lever. Any excuse and they RUN back to their abusive husband.
the ANES data suggest that about 8.4 million 2012 Obama voters backed Trump in 2016 and 2.5 million Romney voters supported Clinton/
I don't really think this is debatable because it turns on publicly available numbers.
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/cr...many-obama-2012-trump-2016-voters-were-there/
Key quote:
Which is a swing of about 11 million people, with 6 million net votes running away from Clinton. She likely needed about 500K-1 million more to win the election.
What you're doing is re-defining swing voters as republicans, which is another way of saying there are no swing voters. I disagree, because people do in fact vote one way then another, and those people are easily sufficient to change the outcome of close elections like what we saw last year.
The idea that Hillary's message "wasn't inclusive enough" is just more bullshit started by the GOP and parroted by brain dead conservatives. Here's a challenge: see how many quotes you can find from Hillary's campaign that you would classify as not inclusive enough, or better yet, outright divisive. The biggest one I can think of is the "basket of deplorables," which in context specifically contained anyone who was at least one of the following:
misogynist
racist
any other kind of bigot based on religion or orientation
Instead of conservatives interpreting that the way it was meant:
"Hillary said Democrats can't reach misogynists/racists/etc. but they can try to be inclusive of the rest of us conservatives. I'm not one of those deplorables so maybe I should listen to what she is saying"
They interpret it as:
"Hillary said I'm deplorable"
I agree with this and it's very important but my guess is that those who did vote for Clinton over Sanders over the message thingi just plain feel their egos are under attack as if they are guilty of something. They are guilty of putting Trump in office, The question is how do you tell people they screwed up in the past, don't do it next time, without them feeling their being guilt tripped by a personal attacks. People are shockingly defensive. This whole nation is guilty of having a President Trump. It's nobody's fault because only the awake can be guilty of anything.The issue is not about Clinton's messaging in particular. It's about the messaging of the left in general. Lots of people voted for Trump this time who either stayed home or voted for Obama last time, and some of that is because they thought that Trump's lack of political correctness was a breath of fresh air. These people think of PC as stifling, and they're also getting the idea that the dems consider themselves to be the party of minorities and women. In that climate, any dem candidate would suffer regardless of the candidate's own messaging.
The issue is not about Clinton's messaging in particular. It's about the messaging of the left in general. Lots of people voted for Trump this time who either stayed home or voted for Obama last time, and some of that is because they thought that Trump's lack of political correctness was a breath of fresh air. These people think of PC as stifling, and they're also getting the idea that the dems consider themselves to be the party of minorities and women. In that climate, any dem candidate would suffer regardless of the candidate's own messaging.
I agree with this and it's very important but my guess is that those who did vote for Clinton over Sanders over the message thingi just plain feel their egos are under attack as if they are guilty of something. They are guilty of putting Trump in office, The question is how do you tell people they screwed up in the past, don't do it next time, without them feeling their being guilt tripped by a personal attacks. People are shockingly defensive. This whole nation is guilty of having a President Trump. It's nobody's fault because only the awake can be guilty of anything.
Of course there are actual swing voters. The world is full of stupid, underinformed and/or superficial people. I just think that segment is the minority compared to disillusioned conservatives and even many of the true swing voters have been conditioned to hate liberals for completely bullshit reasons.I don't really think this is debatable because it turns on publicly available numbers.
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/cr...many-obama-2012-trump-2016-voters-were-there/
Key quote:
Which is a swing of about 11 million people, with 6 million net votes running away from Clinton. She likely needed about 500K-1 million more to win the election.
What you're doing is re-defining swing voters as republicans, which is another way of saying there are no swing voters. I disagree, because people do in fact vote one way then another, and those people are easily sufficient to change the outcome of close elections like what we saw last year.
Anyone that thinks the world is too PC is defacto conservative no matter what they self identify as and anyone that thinks the Democrats are the party of minorities and women is a muppet and probably a misogynist/racist, whether consciously or unconsciously. The GOP treats minorities and women like shit. The Democrats say that is bad. In order to interpret that stance as "Democrats care about minorities and women instead of me" the person has to be operating from the perspective that helping those people must be hurting everyone else.The issue is not about Clinton's messaging in particular. It's about the messaging of the left in general. Lots of people voted for Trump this time who either stayed home or voted for Obama last time, and some of that is because they thought that Trump's lack of political correctness was a breath of fresh air. These people think of PC as stifling, and they're also getting the idea that the dems consider themselves to be the party of minorities and women. In that climate, any dem candidate would suffer regardless of the candidate's own messaging.
First of all, that seems to be exclusively looking at advertising. It doesn't look at things she actually said on the campaign trail, debates, interviews, etc. Secondly, that should have been a winning strategy since Trump kept giving her new ammunition almost weekly. Turns out America really has no reservations about putting a psychopath in the White House because anything is better than an uppity liberal.Her message was overwhelming anti Trump. Being offensive is far removed from being inclusive. People in economic trouble only heard one positive direction to lean towards, and in two desperate locations in middle America it turned the election by 70k votes.