The Democratic Party left me behind — and I'm not alone

[BangersAndSmash]

What you lefties fail to understand is that there are a lot of people who want more than policy and status quo politics. They want meaning in their lives.

What meaning could Donald Trump, or any other politician for that matter, possibly provide to their lives?

Voting for anything other than policies doesn't make any sense to me, because it's the only thing that a politician will do that will have an effect on your life.

 

[kpt018]

The black and Hispanic communities are the most only hostile to homosexuals. This isn't even up for debate. Blacks and Hispanic are also the two most religious groups. They are also two of the most conservative groups. The only reason they vote democrat is out of a sense of racial self interest.

Ok, well those people are deplorable. This has nothing to do with race for me.

 

[Kindacrazy]

Ok, well those people are deplorable. This has nothing to do with race for me.

Fair enough, I don't consider them deplorable I consider it an opinion, I don't agree with it but everyone's allowed theirs. Just pointing out the reality of the situation.

 

[kpt018]

Fair enough, I don't consider them deplorable I consider it an opinion, I don't agree with it but everyone's allowed theirs. Just pointing out the reality of the situation.

I feel pretty strongly that it's a bad opinion, but one they're obviously allowed to have.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

For sure, there's no doubt. Although I think it's fair to say that Trump could not win without raising to an extreme. The argument was just that liberals have to rely on it more given their diversity compared to conservatives, but certainly both sides play the game. It gives some credibility to virtue signaling, I suppose, as much as I hate to admit it.

I disagree with him winning based on his extremity -- he was always going to win the alt -right regardless of his bravado towards chauvinism. Its not like he did better with white voters than the republicans did in 2012 -- he did ironically do better with minority voters which is a head scratcher. The nationalistic right was wrapped for the (R) regardless of trumpisms, he has just given them encouragement to be more vocal about it. i still maintain that it was the rust belt that just saw no change from the left and is a moment of frustration went off the board with trump.

I fully admit the the dems are a better party for the middle and lower classes simply on policy on paper -- but i do recognize an underlying message in the OP as the left despite their trumpeting of their morality still come off as snobby elites unconnected with that of the working population. I mean how often do you see left posters on this site slamming right posters for being uneducated, even though trump did win the white college vote and the left won the minority uneducated vote. I mean i just read @Quequeg berate a night shift worker for being poor due to the fact he works nights -- whether he did that in jest or not, i certainly feel that a lot of the blue collar voters feel thats how the left views them.

 

[Trotsky]

Not sure how disagreeing with homosexuality is "horrific", so let's stick with deplorable. Any problem with the statement that half of blacks are deplorable (based on their awful views)?

Uhhh, so your presumption is that the most "horrific" view of Trump supporters is opposition to gay marriage? You think that was what won Trump the nomination? Kind of strange since Trump was less openly hostile to gay marriage than any GOP nominee in history, and was one of the few in the field that didn't have anti-gay marriage rhetoric on his record.

Clinton was right to refer to a portion of Trump supporters (she only mentioned a certain sect) as "deplorable." Frankly, it was one of the few candid moments of her candidacy, and it was absolutely correct. Trump's supporters could be properly divided into: (i) morons, (ii) single issue voters, and (iii) hateful people. The last grouping could be aptly termed deplorables. It was never conclusively apt to use that moniker to refer to parts of the GOP base before, because they had previously been disguised in the garbs of traditional social conservatism. But when they elected a philandering, profane, bloviating, and half-witted cunt, they tipped their hand.

Regardless, your bringing up gay marriage was completely insincere, and you know it. At no point was every person who opposed gay marriage insinuated as being akin to Trump's shittiest supporters.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

No, your position was not clear. You posted a graph showing that the majority of blacks disapprove of SSM, not sure how that was linked to hostility towards gays at all. And you never explained why it's ok to "disagree with homosexuality" or even describe what that means.

And this is exactly what I mean. If you don't want to actually hash out differences and discuss it why fucking quote me in the first place? If you're not interested, don't bother.

Don't be so hostile and learn to find some common ground. We'll get further.

Let's do this then. I find your failure to acknowledge any connection between hostility and disallowing of rights to be disingenuous. It's why I was willing to simply step away here. Seems like bad faith discussion. If someone said they'd be fine had slavery continued would you defend them against being labeled as racist?

Why do I need to explain that it's ok to disagree with homosexuality when you already justified that stance by implying their religion demanded it? But I'm happy to add the simple concept that people are free to like or dislike whatever they want. That's called personal opinion. As the saying goes, we're all entitled to ours.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Uhhh, so your presumption is that the most "horrific" view of Trump supporters is opposition to gay marriage?

No. The word was used in a post where the only example given was homosexuality. Awful was also used. In my response I used those same words because the association was already made.

 

[Quequeg]

I disagree with him winning based on his extremity -- he was always going to win the alt -right regardless of his bravado towards chauvinism. Its not like he did better with white voters than the republicans did in 2012 -- he did ironically do better with minority voters which is a head scratcher. The nationalistic right was wrapped for the (R) regardless of trumpisms, he has just given them encouragement to be more vocal about it. i still maintain that it was the rust belt that just saw no change from the left and is a moment of frustration went off the board with trump.

I fully admit the the dems are a better party for the middle and lower classes simply on policy on paper -- but i do recognize an underlying message in the OP as the left despite their trumpeting of their morality still come off as snobby elites unconnected with that of the working population. I mean how often do you see left posters on this site slamming right posters for being uneducated, even though trump did win the white college vote and the left won the minority uneducated vote. I mean i just read @Quequeg berate a night shift worker for being poor due to the fact he works nights -- whether he did that in jest or not, i certainly feel that a lot of the blue collar voters feel thats how the left views them.

The only reason I did that was because the guy was being a royal d bag, telling others to get a job and "you sound poor" is a favorite of Trumpsters around here. I respect anybody who works hard even if I don't like them personally IRL.

 

[HereticBD]

Defense? My point is that you guys are being whiny bitches for no reason. She called bigots deplorables

Holy shit, you're dense. She called half of Trump's base deplorables. She didn't say bigots are deplorables. She said 33 million people or so, are bigots. What is it you don't understand about that?

Do you for instance not see a problem with this statement:

"I'm about to generalize, but here goes. I find about half of Hillary Clinton's base to be made up lazy welfare bums and sexual deviants, that I like to call the 'basket of degenerates'"

Anything wrong there? No? It was made clear that it was a generalization, so Clinton supporters shouldn't be annoyed at it, right? I mean, if you're not a lazy pervert you have nothing to be offended about. I was talking about the other 33 million people or so. Chill out.

 

[Trotsky]

No. The word was used in a post where the only example given was homosexuality. Awful was also used. In my response I used those same words because the association was already made.

Idk how I missed that second sentence in kpt's post.

Anyways, I agree with kpt that homophobia =/= opposition to gay marriage. However, I also acknowledge that outright homophobia is prevalent in the black community. But I would disagree that homophobia is the hallmark of the deplorable sect.

 

[BangersAndSmash]

The black and Hispanic communities are the most only hostile to homosexuals. This isn't even up for debate. Blacks and Hispanic are also the two most religious groups. They are also two of the most conservative groups. The only reason they vote democrat is out of a sense of racial self interest.

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

Attitudes change. Among major religious groups in the US, white evangelicals have the lowest favorable rating for gay marriage at 35%. Black protestants come in at 44%. Catholics come in at 67%, Mainline white protestants come in at 68%, and unaffiliated tops the charts at 85%.

The reason that Blacks and Hispanic vote for democrats is because Republicans spend more effort trying to prevent them from voting, keeping them out of the country, or locking them up than they do trying to win their vote. Go figure....

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

The only reason I did that was because the guy was being a royal d bag, and "you sound poor" is a favorite of Trumpsters around here. I respect anybody who works hard even if I don't like them personally IRL.

You sound poor is a favoritism of everyone in the mayberry -- its why it has its own emoji. Honestly i have seen just as many left leaning people and i have right use it. I get it that its all in jest but does come off more ironic from the left leaners at times.

 

[Madmick]

Thought I would share this article from USA Today, its not a typical article you see, would like to read your opinions on it.

USA Today Network Saritha Prabhu, The Tennessean Opinion

I’m no Trump supporter, but I’ve been repulsed by the political and cultural left’s hatred, demonization and mistreatment of the president.

I am a Democrat who has spent the last two years often criticizing my own party and fellow Democrats.

Yeah, I’m a bad Democrat, I know.

I have friends and readers asking me, “Are you still a liberal?” and “Have you changed parties?” and “Why are you seemingly defending Trump?”

I’ve been a loyal Democrat for about 15 years. As someone who became a citizen in 2006, I became a Democrat during the George W. Bush years, because I liked the party’s anti-war, pro-minority, pro-environment, pro-little guy positions.

But the 2016 election was an eye-opener for me. To use the current political jargon, I became “woke,” in some very different ways, and I got “red-pilled.”

It was the year I recognized that our two political parties have become dinosaurs, ossified beyond recognition. Yes, there’s grassroots energy in the Democratic Party, but party leadership is essentially bereft of ideas.

It was the year I joined millions of Americans in losing faith in the ruling class of both parties and in many of our political institutions.

It was also the year this voter became increasingly frustrated that our national media outlets — cable, network and legacy news media — have self-bifurcated into stark pro- and anti-Trump factions.

It's us against the establishment
The real divisions, as I see it, aren’t between Democrats and Republicans, but between the political and corporate ruling class and the national media establishments that support them, on the one hand, and the rest of us. All the other divisions are less consequential.

Politicians from both parties have gotten away with letting down ordinary Americans for decades because millions of Americans are culturally wedded to their tribal political identities of Republican or Democrat, and can’t think outside the box.

Looked at this way, the election of Donald Trump made perfect sense to me. Sixty-three million voters — including African-Americans, Hispanics and Democrats — rejected status quo politics and voted for a strong, rank outsider to shake the establishment from their comfortable perches.

Would President Donald Trump’s supporters have preferred a decent, moral, well-behaved, well-informed populist? Sure, but in dire times, you take the populist who shows up because beggars can’t be choosers, etc.

The Democratic Party and its followers have left me for many reasons, but here are a few examples:

• The party and its followers have been showing illiberal tendencies for some time.
• It has gone off the rails on immigration, free speech, identity politics and some other issues — a topic I’ll defer for another day.
• I’m no Trump supporter, but I’ve been horrified and repulsed by the political and cultural left’s hatred, demonization and mistreatment of President Trump, his family, his administration officials and his voters, which is even worse (if that’s possible) than what the right did to President Obama.

I view the current political climate both as a citizen and a writer.

As a citizen, I see myself more as a political orphan — neither Democrat or Republican.

For an opinion writer, self-identifying as a Democrat (or Republican) can be constricting. It can consciously or unconsciously make you hew to positions, make you defend the indefensible. It can give you cognitive dissonance.

For example: Defending Hillary Clinton in 2016 and the Democratic Party’s current far-left stance on immigration would’ve required me to be dishonest about my views or to contort my opinions into impossible positions.

I see myself as a political independent these days, who’ll opine based on what she sees and thinks, not along party lines.

For what it’s worth, renegades like me are like that canary in the coal mine: We’re trying to warn Democrats when they’re tone-deaf or still don’t get it.

Saritha Prabhu is a columnist at the Tennessean,
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...09/democratic-party-left-me-column/766561002/

 

[kpt018]

Don't be so hostile and learn to find some common ground. We'll get further.

I'm not hostile, but you asked a question and responded to my answer with a picture of a seal laughing, but now you want to find common ground? Ok, my goal is to hash stuff out and common ground is great, should we get there.

Let's do this then. I find your failure to acknowledge any connection between hostility and disallowing of rights to be disingenuous. It's why I was willing to simply step away here. Seems like bad faith discussion. If someone said they'd be fine had slavery continued would you defend them against being labeled as racist?

I'm not denying there is a connection between hostility and disallowing of rights. I'm just pointing out that isn't the only possibility. There are plenty of religious folks that don't hate gays, per se, but don't want them to have the right to marry. I find that view to be terrible as well, but it doesn't have to be out of hate.

Why do I need to explain that it's ok to disagree with homosexuality when you already justified that stance by implying their religion demanded it?

I don't think falling back on your religious views is a good reason to fight to keep gays from getting married.

But I'm happy to add the simple concept that people are free to like or dislike whatever they want. That's called personal opinion. As the saying goes, we're all entitled to ours.

In this conversation, what exactly does liking or disliking SSM and/or homosexuals entail? For me, it's just about them having equal rights and being free to be happy and productive. I don't like or dislike of anyone based on sexual preference. Do you mean that you find it gross? That's fine, it's your reaction, but it's not a good reason to govern one way or another.

 

[kpt018]

Holy shit, you're dense. She called half of Trump's base deplorables. She didn't say bigots are deplorables. She said 33 million people or so, are bigots. What is it you don't understand about that?

Yes, she said the bigots were deplorable, read the quote again. Then she said she was going to generalize, but she thinks half of his supporters fall into that bucket, which she previously defined.

Do you for instance not see a problem with this statement:

"I'm about to generalize, but here goes. I find about half of Hillary Clinton's base to be made up lazy welfare bums and sexual deviants, that I like to call the 'basket of degenerates'"

Anything wrong there? No? It was made clear that it was a generalization, so Clinton supporters shouldn't be annoyed at it, right? I mean, if you're not a lazy pervert you have nothing to be offended about. I was talking about the other 33 million people or so. Chill out.

See, you're intentionally leaving out the most important part. For this to be a good analogy, you would start by saying "people who can work but just cheat the system are lazy welfare bums. philes are sexual deviants. And I would say that Clinton's base is made up of these people".

With that I wouldn't be insulted one bit. I'm not a sexual deviant and I work very hard to support my family. I'll say it was not even close to accurate, but I wouldn't act like a snow flake like you clowns.

 

[kpt018]

No. The word was used in a post where the only example given was homosexuality. Awful was also used. In my response I used those same words because the association was already made.

What post? I never said this was the only or most important part of the "deplorables" paragraph. I never wanted to focus on homophobia, but that is what was being discussed.

 

[TidWell]

Mods can you please Close this thread now I fear for Hunter Thompsons health, I don't want him to get a heart attack

 

[HereticBD]

I'll say it was not even close to accurate, but I wouldn't act like a snow flake like you clowns.

You're projecting. Nobody on the right acted like a snowflake. Nobody on the right marched in the streets upset over her comments.

What you clearly seem to not understand, is how the statement was smug and ignorant, and how it was a mistake to be so smug and ignorant towards such a large group of people, and a horrible statement to make on the campaign trail. Even Trump, for all the shit he talked, never once attacked the voters directly. Never once said a Hillary voter was less than anyone else, let alone half of them.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

I lol'd when I read that. Yeah, let's "fight the death grip the corporations and entertainment industry have on the culture" by electing a TV star and longstanding member of the entertainment industry, who happens to be the founder and still-acting CEO of a $9 billion conglomerate, and whose major policy achievements are deregulating corporations and upwardly distributing massive wealth to the rich.

@Devout Pessimist, you have truly outdone yourself.

You have got to start somewhere. Trump, as degenerate as he is, is a pebble in the pond. Electing Crooked Hillary was only going to make things worse by her selling out the US to the highest bidder and catering to the whims and fads of hysterical and mentally ill lefties. The people elected the lesser of two evils.