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

[Seano]

Everyone would prefer being friends with anyone over being enemies. Given the current circumstances (Russian influence in our election, actively trying to harm western democracies, etc.) I think Regan is rolling in his grave over Trump's foreign policy. There is zero chance he support favor to Russia and attacks on allies.

He just forced NATO to commit billions to defense, a commitment basically made because of Russia.

 

[Trotsky]

He treats you like a lapdog. He only likes you because you worship the ground he walks on, and if you were to seriously disagree with him and do it in a way that he thought challenged him, I'm betting you'd see a different response.

Do you have friends IRL?

Like, this just reflects a seriously weird and petty worldview.

 

[ShinkanPo]

Yeah but I think we’ve officially lost the people who think Space Force will protect america from Space Isis.

That ship has sailed.

What about Space Alladin?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Crooked Hillary is competent and ethical?

Yes to both.

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

I think lefties understand perfectly well that there are voters who don't care about policy.

This is more than just policy and status quo politics. This is about fighting the death grip the corporations and entertainment industry have on the culture. Ultimately, this is about changing the larger culture that has been lost to the nihilistic, hedonist Left.

Electing a TV star with no history of public service whose biggest policy move was tax cuts for corporations and rich heirs doesn't do anything to fight "the death grip the corporations and entertainment industry have on the culture." Also, it's the nihilistic hedonist right that is the big threat to culture. The president of the U.S. is one of the key representatives of the movement.

 

[Trotsky]

Electing a TV star with no history of public service whose biggest policy move was tax cuts for corporations and rich heirs doesn't do anything to fight "the death grip the corporations and entertainment industry have on the culture." Also, it's the nihilistic hedonist right that is the big threat to culture. The president of the U.S. is one of the key representatives of the movement.

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.

 

[kpt018]

So that makes it okay? LOL

Um, it means she's is about to generalize.

Crooked Hillary is competent and ethical? <Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo>

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. While the Left is stuck with their heads up their asses blind to their own rotten stench there are people starting traditionalist movements, homeschooling movements, agrarian movements, religious movements, racial movements (tragically) and so on. Yes, Trump was a middle finger to the smug, self-righteous, hypocrites on the left (the irony of Trump being that guy is not lost on me), but many of the people that supported him are doing more than just obsessing with politics. They are working on changing their lives for the better which in turn will change the culture. Changing the culture will influence the policy makers.

This is more than just policy and status quo politics. This is about fighting the death grip the corporations and entertainment industry have on the culture. Ultimately, this is about changing the larger culture that has been lost to the nihilistic, hedonist Left.

You're right, I don't look to politicians for meaning in my life.

 

[HereticBD]

Um, it means she's is about to generalize.

And?

Who is arguing otherwise? Of course she was generalizing. Why are you using that as some kind of defense for her ignorance?

 

[kpt018]

And?

Who is arguing otherwise? Of course she was generalizing. Why are you using that as some kind of defense for her ignorance?

Defense? My point is that you guys are being whiny bitches for no reason. She called bigots deplorables, if you're not a bigot all good. But if you have a problem with the number, well, she said she was going to generalize. So you should have no issues.

But you're a bunch of snowflakes.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

She is only dismissive of people who hold awful views, right? Do you think it's ok to call a homophobe deplorable?

And who are you to say her estimate is wrong?

Finally, it is not condescending to call someone with horrific views a deplorable. Their views are literally deplorable if you a moral person. It's flat out disingenuous to expand her critique to people that do not hold the views she specified. So back to my original post. If you don't hold those views you're being called deplorable, so you can be mad if you want but it's childish.

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)?

 

[kpt018]

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)?

First, opposing marriage does not mean you're homophobic (for some people it's a religious thing) and neither does "disagreeing" with homosexuality, whatever that means, so that study doesn't mean much from that stand point. Homophobia means having a dislike and/or fear of homosexuals that result in prejudice, fyi.

To address this head on, if your chart showed that most blacks are homophobic I would say yes, they are deplorable, but it has nothing to do with race for me.

Glad we cleared that up.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

First, opposing marriage does not mean you're homophobic (for some people it's a religious thing) and neither does "disagreeing" with homosexuality, whatever that means, so that study doesn't mean much from that stand point. Homophobia means having a dislike of homosexuals, fyi.

To address this head on, if your chart showed that most blacks are homophobic I would say yes, they are deplorable, but it has nothing to do with race for me.

Glad we cleared that up.

Happy Friday, bud.

 

[kpt018]

Happy Friday, bud.

Why do you even bother? I answered your question and that's the response? C'mon man, this is just wasting time.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

OK, I think that is totally nuts. I don't know what else to say about it.

Really, i always thought you were aware of that.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

I'd like jump in and share a view I heard recently (it's not new though) and that I found pretty convincing.

First, I personally fucking hate identity politics and have argued such. But the argument was that liberals are very diverse (compared to Republicans) and are less tribal as a result. They represent gays, minorities, the poor, etc., very diverse whereas conservatives are more homogeneous (white, Catholic, etc.) and as a result more tribal. The argument then goes on to say that is why it is more important for liberals to sort of play identity politics to a higher degree to let voters know you're on their side with the issues. For example, a straight white male democrat wants to make it clear to gays, women, minorities, etc. that he's on their side with the issues. It's much less necessary for Republicans, so the argument goes.

This has me pushing back a little on my strong stance against identity politics (I still hate it though).

Catholics are fairly split down the middle -- but i agree with your post. Although the DNC trotting out Micheal Browns mom as some hero was pretty comical and transparent.

 

[kpt018]

Catholics are fairly split down the middle -- but i agree with your post. Although the DNC trotting out Micheal Browns mom as some hero was pretty comical and transparent.

Yeah for sure. There is definitely some cringe worthy identity politics stuff going on with some on the left, and I hate it.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Why do you even bother? I answered your question and that's the response? C'mon man, this is just wasting time.

You made your position clear as did I with mine. Right? Do you need me to argue incessantly over the point or call names? To me that would be wasting time. I mean, if denying gays marriage isn't what Hilary was referring to when referencing homophobia then I've no idea what criteria she used in her assessment. Seems like denying rights and disliking go hand in hand. But if it's religion, as you say, then you're giving the right a pass as well. Not me though. Justifying institutionalized oppression based on personal superstitions/fairy-tales is far more deplorable than simply disliking homosexuality.

I meant happy Friday part. Cheers.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Yeah for sure. There is definitely some cringe worthy identity politics stuff going on with some on the left, and I hate it.

Identity politics play a fairly significant role on both sides -- the right went full retard with it this election -- the left not as much but they had tiny violins playing the background for the most part.

 

[kpt018]

You made your position clear as did I with mine. Right? Do you need me to argue incessantly over the point or call names? To me that would be wasting time. I mean, if denying gays marriage isn't what Hilary was referring to when referencing homophobia then I've no idea what criteria she used in her assessment. Seems like denying rights and disliking go hand in hand. But if it's religion, as you say, then you're giving the right a pass as well. Not me though. Justifying institutionalized oppression based on personal superstitions/fairy-tales is far more deplorable than simply disliking homosexuality.

I meant happy Friday part. Cheers.

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.

 

[kpt018]

Identity politics play a fairly significant role on both sides -- the right went full retard with it this election -- the left not as much but they had tiny violins playing the background for the most part.

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.

 

[Kindacrazy]

First, opposing marriage does not mean you're homophobic (for some people it's a religious thing) and neither does "disagreeing" with homosexuality, whatever that means, so that study doesn't mean much from that stand point. Homophobia means having a dislike and/or fear of homosexuals that result in prejudice, fyi.

To address this head on, if your chart showed that most blacks are homophobic I would say yes, they are deplorable, but it has nothing to do with race for me.

Glad we cleared that up.

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.