Fear of sex is king, tho.
10 Likes
Welcome to the GOP.
12 Likes
Bill Clinton’s gift of NAFTA
NAFTA was signed by George H W Bush, and passed by GOP majorities in the house and the senate with a lesser number of Democrats joining them. Clinton was not pro NAFTA but said he would not renegotiate it and hoped any deficiencies would be addressed by later legislation.
See what we are saying about facts? Slippery little bastards, aren’t they.
13 Likes
And the successful “Clinton did it” narrative will continue unabated amongst both parties.
7 Likes
Unfortunately for the OP, data needs to be interpreted before you can draw any conclusions from it. You don’t get to overrule competing interpretations of the data by yelling “DATA!” even louder.
Twitter dude bases his conclusions on what messages people must have gotten from “the media”:
You’ll have to squint VERY HARD to find ANYTHING to do w/ economics or trade in what most Americans heard from media abt Trump
But an incredibly important aspect of this election is the rejection of the media and the content of its stories by Trump supporters. So this “data” assumes that people were responding to media narratives when in reality those exact people rejected those media narratives.
This alone renders the whole analysis suspect, but the self-serving technocratic condescending tone of this guy – and especially the insistence that the DATA! show he’s right when he’s really just affirming his own biases – really doubles down on everything the Democrats did wrong in this election.
Take this guy’s advice and Michael Moore’s and the left will continue to be marginalized. Racists and sexists aren’t going away and trying to marginalize them resulted in the election of Donald Trump, so I’m pretty sure that’s not the ideal strategy.
Consider: the lady who described Michelle Obama as “a Ape in heels” (sic) vehemently denied that there was any racist subtext to her statement. From her perspective, she was simply talking about the fact that she finds Michelle Obama physically unattractive (and yes, there’s a whole lot of wrong to unpack there, but let’s take one step at a time). As far as I can tell, she really doesn’t understand that her perception of Michelle Obama’s looks are influenced by a deeply held racism that was most likely part of a whole package of cultural views she inherited from her parents, teachers, and friends throughout the years. From her perspective, calling her or her statement “racist” is an unfair lie.
And yes, she is wrong that she is not racist. She is definitely racist. But do you think you’re going to convince her of that by shouting about how bad racism is and trying to drive her out of the political conversation? At that point, you’ve only convinced her that you’re the enemy, she is right and being persecuted for it. She will not trust anything you have to say, and anyone who declares you their enemy has probably now gotten her vote. Again, this is exactly how Trump got elected. And you’re telling me you want to double down on that winning strategy?
Liberals, sooner or later you may have to acknowledge the necessity of compromise with people whose views you find distasteful. They live here too, they’re not going away, and if this is truly a democracy then they’re entitled to a say regardless of how wrong you personally think they are about everything. This isn’t to say we should give them their way – we should absolutely fight racism however we can. But using a strategy that has already failed by electing a candidate who openly courted white nationalist sentiment is not a good way to fight racism, and anyone who insists that pursuing the fight with moral and ideological purity is more important than actually winning that fight is hurting the cause. (Remember when you said that to third party voters? Well it cuts both ways.)
Maybe they’re recognizing the existence of incommensurable moral values and are looking for a compromise that lets everyone live in the kind of society they want to live in? Maybe democrats, liberals, and assorted leftists could consider the wisdom in such an approach? Maybe it’s a better approach than either side forcing policies shaped by their values on the millions who disagree with those values?
1 Like
Liberals are often asked to “compromise” on issues of fundamental human rights. I think history has shown that’s not actually a good way to go.
So overturn cases like Brown v. Board of Education, Loving v. Virginia, Roe v. Wade, Obergefell v. Hodges, etc? No thank you.
15 Likes
Your attitude and the backlash to it is what got Trump elected, so I hope your smug sense of moral superiority has been helping you sleep well the last few nights.
I’m asking this in all sincerity: are you suggesting that the cases I just mentioned above are issues that liberals should have “compromised” on to avoid backlash from the right? Or should we stand up for certain issues even if doing so creates backlash?
13 Likes
It’s smug to expect me to be able to make decisions about my reproductive health? Really? It’s smug for black people to expect to be able to vote in their own country? Really? It’s smug to expect to be able to marry the person you love, no matter their gender? Really? It’s smug to expect the same consideration no matter gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation? Really? How is expecting basic human rights to be protected smug, exactly?
No. I’m not sleeping well. I’m scared of a country that literally doesn’t want me to be an equal citizen.
16 Likes
No. Strip the federal government of the power it has to impose anyone’s values on anyone else. While that happens, advocate and fight for full human rights in our own communities. Lead by example instead of fiat. Show people the better way instead of writing them off as lost causes.
1 Like
you ninja edited when I was already writing a response.
So that’s a yes on repealing those Supreme Court decisions. A variation on “states’ rights!”
11 Likes
People’s whose values include “fuck those cunts, let’s rape them into submission” are not values I’d consider worth listening to.
17 Likes
Translation: “Write off the human rights and right to self-determination for the minorities in the communities that decide that they want someone to persecute”.
15 Likes
I was responding to @Brainspore’s comments, not yours, and the specific attitudes you enumerate are not the ones I was referring to as “smug”.
What you are both doing is trying to employ social marginalization to dismiss what I have to say instead of honestly internalizing it and acknowledging its merits. This is, again, the exact strategy that got Trump elected. I once again humbly implore you to reconsider it.
1 Like
How is pointing out that racism and sexism and homophobia and Christian dominionism socially marginalizing people?
What precisely would you like me to reconsider?
11 Likes
What I am doing is giving concrete examples of why progressives would be ill-advised to employ the “compromise” approach on important social issues and why Federal action is sometimes required to protect fundamental human rights instead of entrusting those rights to the states.
16 Likes
So they were rejecting media narratives by accepting the dominant and themselves unquestioning media narratives? Brilliant analysis.
[quote=“wysinwyg, post:170, topic:89524, full:true”]
Liberals, sooner or later you may have to acknowledge the necessity of compromise with people whose views you find distasteful. [/quote]
If that compromise includes normalising bigotry or letting people get away with it then you’ll find few liberal takers for that suggestion.
And they have that say, thanks to a right guaranteed them by the federal government whether they live in Coaltown, West Virginia or the People’s Republic of Santa Monica. What they don’t have under the same rule is immunity from being criticised by others for what they say. Even if it gives a racist mayor the sads.
If they’re not interested in there being a United States anymore, why not? However, most Democrats, liberals and assorted leftists would prefer that the country remain intact – unlike you, apparently. But then it’s easy for one to be glib about such balkanisation if you’re not a poor African-American woman stuck in Mississippi.
No, if you want to assign blame who got him elected you must start with the combination of suckers and bigots who voted for him. If you sense a tone of superiority in that statement you’d be correct, although it’s not moral superiority but that of not looking to a confidence artist to solve real problems. Not that it helps us sleep.
7 Likes
You a word. But I’ll answer anyway.
Here are a sampling of the responses to my statements so far:
So overturn cases like Brown v. Board of Education, Loving v. Virginia, Roe v. Wade, Obergefell v. Hodges, etc? No thank you.
So that’s a yes on repealing those Supreme Court decisions. A variation on “states’ rights!”
That is @Brainspore trying to paint my opposition to the ludicrous amount of power invested in the US federal government as cryptoracism. In reality, the US federal government is one of the biggest threats to human rights on the planet.
People’s whose values include “fuck those cunts, let’s rape them into submission” are not values I’d consider worth listening to.
That’s you trying to paint my support for democracy and popular sovereignty as support for horrible misogyny.
Translation: “Write off the human rights and right to self-determination for the minorities in the communities that decide that they want someone to persecute”.
That’s @bibliophile20 trying to paint my opposition to the threat to human well-being posed by the ridiculous power of the US federal government as callousness at the plight of political minorities in conservative states.
Instead of making actual arguments, you guys try to discredit my message by painting me as, if not sexist and racist myself, then certainly someone going out of his way to empower sexists and racists. This is also what liberals and the media tried to do to defeat Trump. In case you’ve been holding out to check the election results, it didn’t work. Try a new strategy.
