Why is this board so liberal?
- Thread starter IDontWannaLargeFarva
- Start date
It seems like it wasn't the candidate you objected to but the party he would need to pander to.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
I'm sure you can't. You've already outed yourself as someone who ignores campaigns and instead must rely on some mystical fairy whispering prognistications into your ear to inform your vote.
But there's good news for people like you. You can be president of Venezuela someday.
http://www.latintimes.com/nicolas-m...sists-little-bird-told-him-hugo-chavez-196520
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Exactly. A person's personal history of deeds and accomplishments is bigly more important than campaign bumper stickers and sound bites. Maybe that bullshit works on your brain, but not mine.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
What about a person who does accomplish Bigly things and then says they were crap accomplishments because of extremists in a party?
You're wrong on this, as usual, and you just don't care. Your cognitive dissonance fuels your retirement.
The women I know were engaged prior to the election, contributed, voted. But nothing like what is happening now. I have never seen this level of engagement. But the country has never elected such a blatant misogynist before over a very capable woman. Among the women I know It is almost as if Trump grabbed these women personally. To say they are pissed is an understatement. Apparently 100s of GOP reps are too scared to have town hall meetings in their districts any more.
Which is why the Democrat party has become a non-player on the national scene. Trump represents an awful lot of NeverHillary's and others who reject Obamism. The truth is staring you in the face no matter how earnestly you deflect. Trump's support base is not just the dregs of American society as so many liberals insist is the case. There is real opposition to the agenda the left is peddling.
CoH, could you bring us up to date on the recent "bigly" accomplishments of Mitt Romney ?
I am sure it is different by region. I see people who are mad but I have not seen much to convince me that there is much more relevant activity going on. I will be interested to see how things go in 2018. That will be my real barometer. All these marches and things do not add up to a hill of beans if you cannot get these people to midterm polls.
Loss aversion is a driver of our political dynamics. The more one side loses the angrier and more mobilized they get while the more one side wins the more complacent and equitable they become. For this reason in a democracy there are no permanent winners. My advice to your side (which you will ignore) would be to minimize the amount you goad those out of power. My advice to my side would be to be goaded to the maximum extent possible. Of course there is an alternative to this winning and losing crap. All your side needs to do is scotch democracy and you need never lose again. I expect your side is already seriously considering it.
Certainly not to the extent they are now. You're going to see many more women running for office and much more involved in the future. There have been multiple representatives speaking out on women calling their offices, attending town halls, etc.
Cool. And if they are women I agree with, they will have my vote. My current Congressman is Susan Brooks. I voted to put her into that office and will do so in the next election.
Conservative women count too right?
I think some of the men here are in denial about what is going on and think I'm a crazy feminazi, but what you say is absolutely correct. I can't tell you how many women I've met that have never been politically active before and are now attending town halls, calling representatives, paying attention to local bills, etc. Many women are taking it personally that a man that has treated women with such disrespect his entire life is now in this position. My Facebook feed is full of groups from all over the country that are organizing. Today's to do list in Indiana is calling about the gerrymandering bill. Done...
Of course they do. But don't pretend that all conservative women support Trump. Many, many do not. And some that voted for him have already withdrawn support.
Good frickin' grief. There is no "wrong" about this. Talk is cheap. You value talk, I value accomplishments.
I do not 100% support him either. I would be just fine with a more conservative replacement for Trump.
Also, I thought you said last week that the movement was not all about Trump. You had a slew of issues you mentioned that have nothing to do with him.
http://www.sacurrent.com/the-daily/...e-woman-testifying-against-anti-abortion-bill If only those pesky women would just shut up.
Yes. And? For not supporting him 100% you sure spend an awful lot of time on here supporting him.
Talk is cheap but action isn't. Your vote for Trump is action and we can all draw our own inferences about whether that demonstrates a value for accomplishments or not.
What have I specifically been supporting him on? The most full throated defense I have trotted out is akin to, "yeah well Obama kind of did that too..." Which we both know is not much of a defense.
Most of my posts the past few weeks have centered around the way the left has reacted to his election. That is not a support of him, it is a criticism of the manner in which he is being opposed.
I am not a fan of his golf trips, not a fan of how discombobulated he comes across when speaking, not a fan of completely scrapping the TPP, not a fan of the need for exaggeration in order to make himself look better. There has not been much to criticize yet from a legislative standpoint. I am seeing rumors that they want to use the National Guard to round up illegals. I would be 100% against that.
So can I jump on you for womensplaining me now?
That is not a support of him, it is a criticism of the manner in which he is being opposed.
Where were you the last 8 years, Crazy? Oh...I remember...not complaining about the untoward manner of opposition.
I completely agree. By today's standards it would be more Libertarianism....unfortunately that will never gain ground because Republicans will never take a stand against the Church and Democrats will never stand for individualism (speaking very generally).
Where were you the last 8 years, Crazy? Oh...I remember...not complaining about the untoward manner of opposition.
I really do not mind all the name calling, and the women's march is constitutionally protected speech so no quarrel there either. I think they are relatively ineffective but whatever floats your boat.
Some people were mean and nasty to Obama and crossed the line with some of their characterization of him. You never saw me support racial comments against Obama. You wanted to call him a Pinky Commie? Cool beans. It was not effective but it made people feel better I guess.
I do however have a problem with rioting and the Heckler's Veto that I have seen the past few weeks. I do not recall that type of thing after Obama was elected. My criticism has mainly been focused there.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Dont agree with that....Trump had only 1M votes more than Romney after four years. Also, consider the competition. I would have to think that if Trump were running in 2012 against Obama, he would have received fewer votes than he did in 2016 (or even less than Romney did in 2012). I think the difference was how bad Hillary was, not how well-liked Trump was.
Point taken that the moblization and demobilization effects were not symmetric between the two parties. Point also taken that it may have been more a negative reaction to Hillary by Democrats than a positive reaction to Trump by Republicans. None of that changes my basic point though.
This just doesn't make sense,esp if you look at the results and break down the numbers from the 2016 Presidential race.If nothing else the 1.4 million or so who voted for Stein represent people to the left of HRC who felt she wasn't "liberal" enough.If you combine that total with HRC you get about 67,310,000- what we'll call the "liberal" vote...
Gary Johnson got about 4.5 million votes,but it's hard to characterize him as a conservative rejecting the "leftist" agenda.In fact Libertarians agree with many on the left when it comes to social issues,so it's difficult for me to accept the notion that even a majority of Johnson voters would represent a pro-Trump element.
However,for the sake of argument let's give Trump those 4.5 million votes and call that the anti-Obama,anti- "leftist agenda" vote.That makes the number about 67,474,000 for "trump's" side,and that's giving him a yuge electoral advantage in numbers that simply doesn't exist.
Care to hazard a guess to what the numbers would have been if Obama had actually been running?I feel pretty confidant in saying that PA,MI and WI would all have remained Blue.And I think it's pretty likely both FL and NC would have rejected Trump as well...
I think it would be a huge mistake to confuse antipathy towards HRC (and the character assassination that the rightwing blogosphere performed successfully on her) with some huge majority groundswell of anti-Obama,anti-leftist agenda populism.The right won't have HRC to kick around in 2020,and imo Trump's main accomplishment in the next 4 yrs will be to unite and consolidate the opposition against him...
You would have a point except that you can't ignore the huge down-ballot shift away from Democrats in fed and state legislatures and Governorships. There's no denying there a liberal strongholds on the coasts and some urban areas, but we've all seen the maps. Flyover country is trending deep red.
The Tea Party's major agenda was reducing the national debt and deficit by reducing spending and for lower taxes. These are legitimate, pretty mainstream desires. Most of the negative reaction some have to the Tea Party (or as the lefties loved to call them, "Tea Baggers") was generated by a concerted effort to demonize the entire movement as racist, sexist, right-wing, etc., etc. It was basically focusing every standard charge the left has about Republicans in general on them and multiplying it by a factor of 10. It was generally false, but effective, propaganda.
I don't think they mobilized for Trump. Many mainstream Republicans either didn't vote for him or were very unenthusiastic about him. They're still very unenthusiastic about him. Trump motivated a lot of people that don't usually vote or mostly vote for Democrats. The blue collar worker and union members for example. His (American) jobs first promises and his anti-trade promises and promises to reduce the flow of cheap labor provided by illegal immigrants all resonated with those people. It didn't hurt Trump that Democrats were hardly enthusiastic for her as well.
In what way? The media focused on emails that proved absolutely nothing. The fact that Comey knew about the Russian hacking and didn't think the public needed to know that, but did think they needed to hear more about emails, that proved to be nothing 10 days before the election. That wasn't her fault.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
I don't disagree that their movement was/is based off of what you've outlined above and that I don't disagree with that mission. However, like a lot of political movements, what the mission is and what actually happens are often two separate things. They quickly became the know-nothing arm of the GOP and their anti-science and anti-intellectual execution is the chief reason I've not voted GOP since.
While not under the banner of the Tea Party yet, the base that forced Palin on McCain was the start. I was a goner at that point.
Men are in denial? Is that code for saying "you aren't listening to me!" There is such a thing as disagreement. I know you think you are always right, but just cuz I or anybody else disagrees with you doesn't mean we are in denial, we simply think you are wrong.
As I said many times, I have no problem with political activism. It has done a lot of good, and much of it has also been totally useless. You gotta do what you gotta do. But for me, I think the best way to effect change is to start with what is between my own ears, not to try and change what is between somebody else's ears. I detest some of Trump's past behavior as much as the next person. And if I thought that he, or anybody else, marginalized me, I'd prove them wrong with what I do--and that wouldn't be marching with signs.
To put this in terms of the cooler, you are being trolled, and you are proving to be trollable.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Reading comprehension. It's an art.
I didn't say he was. I said the Tea Party became such. And he had to back away from his accomplishments (of which you were so proud) to assuage them.
Try living withou CD...just once.
I think I'm always right? Says the person who will turn himself into a pretzel and change the argument with everyone on here. We aren't talking about who is right and who is wrong. We are talking about this being a big movement , much more than your constant dismissive women in hats marching. And, as I've said more than a dozen times, I'm doing much more than marching, as nearly every woman I know. Remember when I told you about some of what the group was doing? But you of course, in your infinite wisdom, wanted to tell the group what they should be focusing on.
