I'm sorry, but I cannot disagree more that it's initiated by this White House. This division was started with Barack Obama, PERIOD! That piece of **** had a mission to destroy the country from within by turning everybody against each other, and it worked. The media is also to blame WAY MORE than Trump. Trump hasn't been perfect with it, but to blame him for the division is simply ridiculous.
ABC cancels Roseanne Reboot.
- Thread starter Sarge
- Start date
I'm sorry, but I cannot disagree more that it's initiated by this White House. This division was started with Barack Obama, PERIOD! That piece of **** had a mission to destroy the country from within by turning everybody against each other, and it worked. The media is also to blame WAY MORE than Trump. Trump hasn't been perfect with it, but to blame him for the division is simply ridiculous.
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2014
- Messages
- 5,307
- Reaction score
- 4,795
- Points
- 113
Obama might have had good intentions, but when you pander to illogical, race politics, it just makes race relations much, much worse.
Obama, either by action or inaction, created and propagated the continued myth of "disenfranchised and discriminated" groups. It's not just African American, he pandered to any group that had any slight against society, no matter how trivial or how baseless in fact. His idea (and this is the general liberal consensus) of "listening" to all slights equally, created an environment for EVERYONE to complain about something. Hell, even whites are complaining.
When every group gets equal importance to their grievances (which is not true when some groups deserve and have legitimate social injustice), you really get the kind of division and "no one gets anything" type of divided country.
This isn't about "Black Lives Matter" or any one group during Obama's reign. It was Obama and the liberal consensus that ALL these groups deserved to be listened too and "understood" and pandered to, no matter how insignificant or small when compared to the big picture of social progress. The more groups they decide to listen to, the more groups there are to separate into, the more groups that feel they are "underrepresented", the more groups that feel "left out".
Obama and liberals CREATED these groups by pandering to their every complaint.
And remember, it's not about EQUALITY anymore, it's about attention to the cause and how much retribution your group gets to those you hold a slight against. That is what race, sex, gun, abortion, et. al. groups are all about now. It's not good enough to be equal, someone has to pay a price.
Obama, either by action or inaction, created and propagated the continued myth of "disenfranchised and discriminated" groups. It's not just African American, he pandered to any group that had any slight against society, no matter how trivial or how baseless in fact. His idea (and this is the general liberal consensus) of "listening" to all slights equally, created an environment for EVERYONE to complain about something. Hell, even whites are complaining.
When every group gets equal importance to their grievances (which is not true when some groups deserve and have legitimate social injustice), you really get the kind of division and "no one gets anything" type of divided country.
This isn't about "Black Lives Matter" or any one group during Obama's reign. It was Obama and the liberal consensus that ALL these groups deserved to be listened too and "understood" and pandered to, no matter how insignificant or small when compared to the big picture of social progress. The more groups they decide to listen to, the more groups there are to separate into, the more groups that feel they are "underrepresented", the more groups that feel "left out".
Obama and liberals CREATED these groups by pandering to their every complaint.
And remember, it's not about EQUALITY anymore, it's about attention to the cause and how much retribution your group gets to those you hold a slight against. That is what race, sex, gun, abortion, et. al. groups are all about now. It's not good enough to be equal, someone has to pay a price.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2014
- Messages
- 11,931
- Reaction score
- 15,738
- Points
- 113
One of my biggest peeves now is people who label anything “whatabout-ism" (not that it’s exactly what you did but it’s close so i’m going to rant here)
One of the strongest agruments one can make is to provide an example that proves the other side is not being consistent in their beliefs or actions, IE they’re hypocrits.
This is why the left has now coined "whatabout-ism" as a total Alinsky tactic to use ridicule to discourage the use of apt analogies by their enemy so because it’s something they can’t logically counter. So pointing out hypocrisy will not be allowed in debates.
Ok, now back to my comment.....
You missed my whole point anyway when i pointed out the flaws in other countries. It was not to say America is good enough so rest on our laurels. It was simply to show that the left’s criticisms of America can be made of pretty much any country or culture that has ever existed.
Nobody thinks America is perfect. But to hear liberal talk, Europe is perfect. Sean Penn was telling us Venezuela was a garden paradise a few years ago, same with Michael Moore and Cuba.
I truly believe that America is the best country on earth for a minority person to live and have the best chance at a good quality of life. And i don’t think it’s close. Does that mean it’s perfect? No. Does that mean bad **** won’t happen? Of course not. What civilization ever offered that?
another point is that in America, it is not race that holds people back. It is often bad individual choices. A poor black man in the projects has far more in common with a white guy in a trailer park than he has in common with a college educated black man with a job. I’m not even talking some great job. I mean a steady middle class job that most college grads can get.
Does that mean that a black man who is a mechanic won’t get denied a job because Billy Bob’s garage is owned by a racist? No, but it means even if that did happen he can probably go down the block and get hired by Firestone. Because racism is very rare now.
This is my main issue now. Everbody knows there are racist individuals and some people will have ****** things happen. But that does not mean that is how the whole system works. Stop trying to convince me that all cops are racists. I know they aren’t as a group.
A bakery won’t make your gay wedding cake? So you go to their competitor who will be happy to overcharge the **** out of you the same they overcharge a straight couple just because they put 3 cakes on stilts.
we need to get away from these protests that take individual incidents and stitch them into a crisis.
That’s why the anthem protests are offensive to many. It is not a precise protest. When you protest the anthem you are taking a sawed off shotgun approach. You are blasting people who have done nothing wrong. For example, football fans.
It's not like people of color are flooding over our borders, sometimes risking lives, to get here.
This is the drop the mic article on this whole thing and the double standard. Thank you Wall Street Journal.
A Tale of Two Indecencies Shows How We Got Trump
The lesson of the Roseanne Barr-Samantha Bee double standard.
"Roseanne Barr and Samantha Bee seldom have anything interesting to say. But their recent controversies explain our political situation. Taken as one, the story has the precision of a parable.
Ms. Barr, a Trump supporter—in one of her many thoughtlessly grotesque moments—tweets a vulgar remark about longtime Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett. People reasonably interpret it as racist. Within hours, Ms. Barr’s No. 1 television program is canceled. Even reruns of her decades-old show are taken off the air.
Ms. Bee, a leftist who hates Mr. Trump—in one of her many well-scripted and vetted grotesque moments—makes an obscene remark about Ivanka Trump. That it is misogynistic is beyond dispute. The audience cheers. Her producer brags that the obscenity is trending on social media. After a day of outrage from the right, Ms. Bee issues a halfhearted apology. She receives an award. Her unpopular and unprofitable show stays on the air. Influential cultural voices earnestly debate whether her ugly comment was really all that bad. The conversation trails into silence.
Even the clearest parable can be misunderstood, so let’s explain this one. There are, generally speaking, two political factions in the U.S. One, the right, believes that America is a great nation and wants to preserve and continue its experiment in ordered liberty, limited government and free-market capitalism. The other, the left, believes America is racist and oppressive and yearns for some form of socialism.
The left has dominated cultural institutions—show business, journalism and higher education—for decades and has used that domination to convince itself and others that conservatives aren’t simply wrong but bigoted and vicious. Because they believe this—and in service to making others believe it—they interpret virtually any remark by a conservative as bigotry and viciousness, whereas even the most bigoted and vicious remarks by leftists are forgiven, forgotten or overlooked.
This leftist project has been so successful that it has created a kind of cultural cringe on the right. We censor our language, we cull our jokes, we debase ourselves after the slightest misstep. Even those politicians who were elected to promote our policies have often apologized for them, offering “kinder, gentler” or “compassionate” conservatism—as if the principles of governance that make us free and prosperous were heartless and brutal.
It becomes clear why those of us who believe in freedom would select a leader who will not apologize for anything—a product of vulgar leftist culture who will fight back on the left’s own terms and will institute conservative policies and ignore the opposition’s shopworn insults—“racist,” “sexist” and all the rest.
That leader may not be nice, or even good. But as the Barr-Bee situation shows, the cultural left has made it impossible to speak for conservatism without being simultaneously condemned as indecent and assaulted by indecency. It takes an indifference to decency to stand up against the opprobrium and do the right thing.
Do leftists dislike being held to the cultural rules they created? As a polite and decent man who believes that America is the least racist and oppressive country on the planet, that socialism is a moral atrocity and that ordered liberty is a gift from a gracious God, I find it hard to feel their pain over getting Trumped."
A Tale of Two Indecencies Shows How We Got Trump
The lesson of the Roseanne Barr-Samantha Bee double standard.
"Roseanne Barr and Samantha Bee seldom have anything interesting to say. But their recent controversies explain our political situation. Taken as one, the story has the precision of a parable.
Ms. Barr, a Trump supporter—in one of her many thoughtlessly grotesque moments—tweets a vulgar remark about longtime Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett. People reasonably interpret it as racist. Within hours, Ms. Barr’s No. 1 television program is canceled. Even reruns of her decades-old show are taken off the air.
Ms. Bee, a leftist who hates Mr. Trump—in one of her many well-scripted and vetted grotesque moments—makes an obscene remark about Ivanka Trump. That it is misogynistic is beyond dispute. The audience cheers. Her producer brags that the obscenity is trending on social media. After a day of outrage from the right, Ms. Bee issues a halfhearted apology. She receives an award. Her unpopular and unprofitable show stays on the air. Influential cultural voices earnestly debate whether her ugly comment was really all that bad. The conversation trails into silence.
Even the clearest parable can be misunderstood, so let’s explain this one. There are, generally speaking, two political factions in the U.S. One, the right, believes that America is a great nation and wants to preserve and continue its experiment in ordered liberty, limited government and free-market capitalism. The other, the left, believes America is racist and oppressive and yearns for some form of socialism.
The left has dominated cultural institutions—show business, journalism and higher education—for decades and has used that domination to convince itself and others that conservatives aren’t simply wrong but bigoted and vicious. Because they believe this—and in service to making others believe it—they interpret virtually any remark by a conservative as bigotry and viciousness, whereas even the most bigoted and vicious remarks by leftists are forgiven, forgotten or overlooked.
This leftist project has been so successful that it has created a kind of cultural cringe on the right. We censor our language, we cull our jokes, we debase ourselves after the slightest misstep. Even those politicians who were elected to promote our policies have often apologized for them, offering “kinder, gentler” or “compassionate” conservatism—as if the principles of governance that make us free and prosperous were heartless and brutal.
It becomes clear why those of us who believe in freedom would select a leader who will not apologize for anything—a product of vulgar leftist culture who will fight back on the left’s own terms and will institute conservative policies and ignore the opposition’s shopworn insults—“racist,” “sexist” and all the rest.
That leader may not be nice, or even good. But as the Barr-Bee situation shows, the cultural left has made it impossible to speak for conservatism without being simultaneously condemned as indecent and assaulted by indecency. It takes an indifference to decency to stand up against the opprobrium and do the right thing.
Do leftists dislike being held to the cultural rules they created? As a polite and decent man who believes that America is the least racist and oppressive country on the planet, that socialism is a moral atrocity and that ordered liberty is a gift from a gracious God, I find it hard to feel their pain over getting Trumped."
I may have to post that article on the wall and keep it there for all to read in a closed post.
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2014
- Messages
- 4,757
- Reaction score
- 2,715
- Points
- 113
Come on man. The "leftist" media has been running pieces analyzing and empathizing with the "Trump voter" since election night in a panic trying to look "balanced" and understand how the Democrats let the election get away. We've heard it all, we've seen all the arguments, the "economic anxiety", the "the culture war", "feeling left behind", "afraid of speaking out against the dominant left", "silent majority". There is nothing in here but whining and braying over the same **** everyone has been talking about for a year and a half.
Of course someone who agrees with every word of it thinks "all of America should read". There are studies done that show another factor besides ALL of the ones talked about being the strongest correlation with being a Trump voter. I think there's lots of things written from a left-wing point of view that "all of America should read" but you'd do nothing but spit on it and tell me I'm just a snowflake lib Jew who owns the media. Who cares? You're not going to change anyone's mind, especially with this self-victimizing, whining *** bullshit
qft
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2014
- Messages
- 4,757
- Reaction score
- 2,715
- Points
- 113
Very helpful! Thanks!
Insightful and well-written article. Someone mentioned recently what Charles Krauthammer apparently said back in 90's:
Conservatives think the left is wrong.
Liberals think the right is evil.
I'd read it and apply rational thought to it. A good idea is a good idea, I really don't care where it comes from.
The key thing here though is, I haven't read/heard anything but vitriol & hate from the left & their politicians. TDS is real. But if there's something of substance from someone with a different political viewpoint, I'd of course read/consider it. Shouldn't we all be doing that?
As to the other part I bolded, what's this about the strongest correlation to a Trump voter? You do realize 63 million people voted for him, correct?
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 18,599
- Reaction score
- 29,974
- Points
- 113
- Location
- The nearest Steelers bar.
Really? Why don't you post a couple of them, highlighting the "empathy" the leftist media has for Trump voters.
If in fact you read the article and concluded that the author claimed victim status, or was looking for a "poor you," or was whining, you completely and totally misread the damn thing.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 8,105
- Reaction score
- 7,804
- Points
- 113
That's really it in a nutshell.
I can count on one hand the number of rational conversations I have had with a liberal because they quickly and inevitably devolve into accusations of hate, greed, bigotry or selfishness.
Don't agree that creating an entire class of people dependent on welfare is helping them? You are selfish and greedy and hate poor people.
Believe that any of the problems experienced by minority communities are created or exacerbated by their own actions? You're a racist.
Don't think that it's fine and dandy to plunge scissors into the skull of a 20 week old fetus? You hate women and want to keep them barefoot and pregnant.
Believe that 30% of our GDP is a shocking amount to spend on government bureaucracy? You're greedy and don't want to take care of the poor and the sick.
Don't believe that banning AR-15s will immediately put a halt to school shootings? You hate children and want to see them die.
The list goes on and on. It's literally impossible to have a fact based conversation with liberals, at least in my 30+ years of experience.
Last edited:
That may be the longest, most meaningless post I've read on this side of the board. I'm not trying to insult you or get personal, but you quite literally said the equivalent of nothing.
PS...I'm betting if I showed a "study" featured in a Fox News article that originally came from Pew, you'd denounce and not consider said study. But you're mentioning non-referenced studies in a sentence that frankly I'm still trying to interpret, three beers later - "There are studies done that show another factor besides ALL of the ones talked about being the strongest correlation with being a Trump voter. " Can I use a life line and get a translation? Or call a friend?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2014
- Messages
- 4,757
- Reaction score
- 2,715
- Points
- 113
Funny, that's exactly what I got out of that article.. a complete waste of anyone's time who isn't just looking to have their beliefs affirmed
http://people.umass.edu/schaffne/schaffner_et_al_IDC_conference.pdf
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1368430216677304
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2053168017737411
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ving-economic-anxiety/?utm_term=.f801522e1f23
This doesn't sound like "the damn left is so condescending and hypocritical so we hit back".
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2014
- Messages
- 5,307
- Reaction score
- 4,795
- Points
- 113
I love the studies Aggie.
How about a study on why blacks vote 90% democrat? That can't possibly be because left wing/right wing policies really effect blacks that much differently.
Again, Trump pandered to uneducated whites and destroyed Clinton in that demographic. So what? You don't think Obama pandered to Blacks and destroyed McCain & Romney in those demographics in previous elections? I don't here the media complaining this is a "problem", like I do now. Or somehow this exposes some sort of deep rooted social bias in the black demographic.
Pandering to voter demographics is as old as democracy. And what is said during a campaign has (and never will be) and effective method of judging what a candidate will actually do once in office.
Honestly, anyone that judges candidates based on the promises they make during an election cycle is a fool. What you should be judging them on is how you think they will act making DECISIONS in the real world of politics and policy making. Decisions and actions matter. And in the real world, those decisions and actions are NEVER as simple and black/white as they are advertised during a campaign.
I don't regret for one second voting for Trump because his decisions and actions (at least the ones that matter) are greatly superior in my opinion that what Hillary Clinton would have done in similar situations. And that's all that really matters to me. How much of a buffoon on twitter he is or how many people in his cabinet he fires or his relationship with the media - ALL IRRELEVANT. Might be relevant (mistakenly in my opinion) to a media/deep state looking to take him down, but it's not relevant to the people that voted for Trump in the first place (and will continue to vote for Trump in 2020).
The economy is great. Government regulations are down. Illegal immigration is in check. Foreign relations and trade are headed in the right direction (or at least a turn for the better compared to where Obama's policies were headed). And the more Washington in-fights the less they will bother little old me sitting in Delaware. In all honesty, an ineffective Washington might actually be better than an effective socialist Washington in my opinion.
So let them fight. Let the media have a conniption over everything Trump tweets or says or does. Let them overreact. Let the facebookers and marchers complain and hashtag and raise their fists in the air.
I'll see them all at the poles in 2020.
How about a study on why blacks vote 90% democrat? That can't possibly be because left wing/right wing policies really effect blacks that much differently.
Again, Trump pandered to uneducated whites and destroyed Clinton in that demographic. So what? You don't think Obama pandered to Blacks and destroyed McCain & Romney in those demographics in previous elections? I don't here the media complaining this is a "problem", like I do now. Or somehow this exposes some sort of deep rooted social bias in the black demographic.
Pandering to voter demographics is as old as democracy. And what is said during a campaign has (and never will be) and effective method of judging what a candidate will actually do once in office.
Honestly, anyone that judges candidates based on the promises they make during an election cycle is a fool. What you should be judging them on is how you think they will act making DECISIONS in the real world of politics and policy making. Decisions and actions matter. And in the real world, those decisions and actions are NEVER as simple and black/white as they are advertised during a campaign.
I don't regret for one second voting for Trump because his decisions and actions (at least the ones that matter) are greatly superior in my opinion that what Hillary Clinton would have done in similar situations. And that's all that really matters to me. How much of a buffoon on twitter he is or how many people in his cabinet he fires or his relationship with the media - ALL IRRELEVANT. Might be relevant (mistakenly in my opinion) to a media/deep state looking to take him down, but it's not relevant to the people that voted for Trump in the first place (and will continue to vote for Trump in 2020).
The economy is great. Government regulations are down. Illegal immigration is in check. Foreign relations and trade are headed in the right direction (or at least a turn for the better compared to where Obama's policies were headed). And the more Washington in-fights the less they will bother little old me sitting in Delaware. In all honesty, an ineffective Washington might actually be better than an effective socialist Washington in my opinion.
So let them fight. Let the media have a conniption over everything Trump tweets or says or does. Let them overreact. Let the facebookers and marchers complain and hashtag and raise their fists in the air.
I'll see them all at the poles in 2020.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 18,599
- Reaction score
- 29,974
- Points
- 113
- Location
- The nearest Steelers bar.
Still looking for those article "empathetic" to the Trump voters, Aggie. You seem to have found any number that parrot a common theme - Trump voters racist. Not much empathy there.
Further, you are obsessed with race. Read your posts. How many focus on race? 50%? More? I thereby declare irony in your assertion that Trump supporters focus on race - they seem to focus less on race than you do.
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2014
- Messages
- 4,757
- Reaction score
- 2,715
- Points
- 113
Right - Trump pandered to a certain... "subset" of folks, if you will. Doesn't mean every single voter is like that - as you've demonstrated, you care about other things. But the data from those studies you "love" demonstrates that it is not accurate to project what YOU care about onto everyone else who voted like you, kinda like that article and parading it around like some sort of Trumpian bible, because clearly there are other things at play than the economy, government regulations, immigration, and trade.
I only recently even ventured into this side of the forum. I'm here, like all of us, because I'm a Steelers fan. So when I see this side and how obviously skewed the discussion is toward one point of view, I feel a duty to bring balance and points of view that are clearly lacking. I have many opinions on many things, and race is simply one of those things. And I'm not starting any discussions, just contributing. So I thereby counter your declaration of irony due to the fact that I'd have no dissenting point of view to bring to the table without a discussion already happening around it.
And as far as your articles go, it's not really functional to google "Trump voter fluff piece" to get what I'm looking for, so I can't find them. There were tons of them coming out after the election in NYT, WaPO, all those sites you hate, trying to analyze the psychology of Trump voters and deliberate on whether the "elite" ignored them for too long, etc. They are everywhere all over the internet, to the point where, when I do google "Trump voter fluff piece" the first link I see is an article sarcastically titled "Not Another Trump Voter Fluff Piece" (https://rantt.com/not-another-trump-voter-puff-piece/). Let's please not pretend because I cannot remember the content enough to google for them, that they don't exist
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 18,599
- Reaction score
- 29,974
- Points
- 113
- Location
- The nearest Steelers bar.
Do you mention race in more than 50% of your comments? If so, you are more focused on race than any Trump voter.
There are tons of such articles, but you just cannot seem to find one.
Gotcha.
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2014
- Messages
- 4,757
- Reaction score
- 2,715
- Points
- 113
I've made 3,450 posts on this site. Probably 3,350 of them are about the Steelers. So, no. I don't. You're just being an ******* and in typical fashion for posters on this forum, trying to discredit or insult the messenger to avoid the realities of the message.
Here found one, since you want to play dumb: https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...rump-johnstown-pennsylvania-supporters-215800
I'm not surprised a Liberal took an article from the Wall Street Journal and said "ignore." It is a great piece explaining why Samantha Bee gets to walk (she's Liberal) and a Conservative cannot for the same. Liberals don't see this. We do...every day.
I simply don't understand why we can't discuss it on the MERITS inside the article prior to simply dismissing it because of the source or you just don't like the subject.
Let's look at some of what the author wrote:
Hmmm, seems free of hyperbole and is basically all factual. He goes on...
Again, all of that is a fair and honest depiction of what happened. His next paragraph:
His first two sentence are factual, there are "basically" two parties. The follow on sentences are up for debate based upon interpretation. They are generalizations and stereotypes of course. But we could discuss them, could we not? For instance he says the Left believes America is racist and oppressive (let's discuss that, many of us see that) and yearns for some form of socialism (let's discuss that too, which I believe leans far more towards fact, considering the enormous popularity of Bernie Sanders and Hillary's recent comments that 41% of Democrats are Socialists).
I'll just paste the rest and break it down:
The left has dominated cultural institutions—show business, journalism and higher education—for decades [factual, no debate] and has used that domination to convince itself and others that conservatives aren’t simply wrong but bigoted and vicious. [up for debate. Many of us see this, why not discuss?] Because they believe this—and in service to making others believe it—they interpret virtually any remark by a conservative as bigotry and viciousness, [again his opinion but one believed by many of us Conservatives who experience this in our daily walk] whereas even the most bigoted and vicious remarks by leftists are forgiven, forgotten or overlooked. [this is pretty much fact. Look at the View and their remarks. Look at Jemele Hill v Curt Schilling. Look at the federal charges brought in the knock out game and against who. Look at Maxine Waters. Look at Stephen Colbert. Look at who's lost their jobs for comments about Obama or Liberals and who's kept their jobs while making equally as vile commentary about Trump and Conservatives. There is a definite pattern and history here that the author notes and is real].
This leftist project has been so successful that it has created a kind of cultural cringe on the right. We censor our language, we cull our jokes, we debase ourselves after the slightest misstep. Even those politicians who were elected to promote our policies have often apologized for them, offering “kinder, gentler” or “compassionate” conservatism—as if the principles of governance that make us free and prosperous were heartless and brutal. [again I'm not sure this is up for debate, despite it being opinion. Countless examples could be offered].
It becomes clear why those of us who believe in freedom would select a leader who will not apologize for anything—a product of vulgar leftist culture who will fight back on the left’s own terms and will institute conservative policies and ignore the opposition’s shopworn insults—“racist,” “sexist” and all the rest. [this has been documented countless times, why Trump won. Conservatives tired of Mitt Romney, the nicest man ever, being sullied. The Bush family being destroyed. Every black politician being Uncle Tom'd. Conservatives tried the "nice" approach for decades only to have the Left and the MSM slaughter each, regardless of background and character. All were treated with the same level of attack.]
That leader may not be nice, or even good. But as the Barr-Bee situation shows, the cultural left has made it impossible to speak for conservatism without being simultaneously condemned as indecent and assaulted by indecency. [look at this board. The number of times Conservatives are labeled racists simply for their views is a microcosm of every facet of our lives. It is in fact a real situation.] It takes an indifference to decency to stand up against the opprobrium and do the right thing. [it does take an indifference. You may disagree that it is the "right" thing.]
Do leftists dislike being held to the cultural rules they created? As a polite and decent man who believes that America is the least racist and oppressive country on the planet, that socialism is a moral atrocity and that ordered liberty is a gift from a gracious God, I find it hard to feel their pain over getting Trumped. [this is purely opinion and the man's view, but I can attest that many feel this very way. We have, and our political leaders have been treated by these Leftist rules for decades. Go back to Reagan. Go back to Clarence Thomas. Go back to Condoleeza Rice. After trying for decades, a very very large portion of America said enough is enough, fight fire with fire. You may not like it, but his point is just that...the Left isn't enjoying taking their own medicine. I don't think that's really debatable.]
I really can't see what is wrong with his assessment. The realities of today's world support his opinion in the minds of half of this country. That isn't "wrong" and not a matter of simply affirming one's beliefs when the realities (examples I've posted) are there.
And as far as your sentence, you missed the entire point. I cannot, at a basic, English structure level, interpret your sentence: "here are studies done that show another factor besides ALL of the ones talked about being the strongest correlation with being a Trump voter." I'm saying I merely cannot interpret what you mean or intend to convey in that sentence.
Last edited:
Look at the rest of the media. We ARE equal time.
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2014
- Messages
- 4,757
- Reaction score
- 2,715
- Points
- 113
My comment had nothing to do with the source at all. I was purely commenting on the content of the article and that it is nothing I (or anyone else) haven't seen before. I honestly didn't even know it was from WSJ until you just said it. I read every word of it and didn't feel like I learned any new information or insight, therefore I say it's a waste of time.
I'm pointing out that there is another reason (racial resentment -- oops, forgot can't talk about that or else I'm obsessed) is a stronger predictor of Trump support than all the other factors that article touts. The article's title implies it can explain to us "how we got Trump" and ignored one of the biggest (if not THE biggest) factor. You say I'm obsessed, I say y'all's denying is strong. Again, just pointing out something y'all refuse to acknowledge
Similar threads
