Democrats might do this most of the time with what they say, but there are clear differences within the party. Just look at how Manchin and Sinema decide everything in the legislature, often being obstructionist to their own party's President. Establishment Dems routinely support moderates over anyone progressive, etc. Democrats are way more fractured on issues than Republicans are. Any sort of Republican minority is just that, a minority.
Well maybe I misinterpreted your original post but it seemed like you were implying that the ones being the least sane were Democrats for talking about specific human rights issues, which they obviously do more of when the situation is a bit less favorable as far as gas prices or the economy goes. Or maybe it's a bit more topical because Republicans are pissing their diapers over it. Or maybe they've gotten bored of sucking off Wall Street.
I'm kind of crazy, I think most people can walk and chew gum at the same time. So the most sane can shit on regressive morons AND talk about the causes and consequences of higher fuel costs. I know, I know, I'm probably giving people too much credit.
Misunderstanding I think. I'm mostly saying that the left will talk about gender identity, which I honestly think is pretty harmless, but the right will report that they are talking about sending kindergartners to Drag Shows for school field trips.
Honestly, I think the left in the USA is pretty bad at branding.
This recent release by the Austin Statesman is the final nail in the coffin for any support they had from any non-Uvalde-cop. The city itself is really close to where I live. It has (had) a heavy "Back the Blue" presence. Never forget that THIS was their press release just days after the shooting:
Literal definition of "aged like milk." Boasting about responding to the threat within minutes, and also expressing thankfulness that no cops were injured. Jesus Christ. The shooter was (very likely) distracted shooting rounds into corpses for an hour and thirty minutes, and not one of those idiots in body armor, helmets, and riot shields managed to go in and shoot him? Those cops from the Chief (as well as the school district's chief) right down to the grunts are the most despicable kind of humans. The lack of social awareness is absolutely insane. They had people with tasers and ARs outside holding back concerned parents (as a parent, I hope all those fucks rot in hell for that). They tackled and disarmed their own officer who was going in after a phone call with his wife in which she had been shot and was bleeding to death (and did die). They continue to harass residents of Uvalde who speak out, and among those is a mother who went in to rescue her child.
The Police Chief went forward with being sworn into the City Council after this colossal fuck up. I will never understand that. I get the idea that you work at getting elected, and you're excited about the boost to your political career. I get wanting something and feeling entitled to it. I do NOT get the optics of allowing himself to be sworn in (in secret, so he knew it was a fucked situation) amid the worst shooting in the past few years (sad I can't say century or anything, because this shit happens so often, and Vegas was much worse other than the target).
Other countries have a LOT of requirements to become a police officer. The USA? It's mostly people who couldn't make the cut for fire fighting, and lack college degrees.
I like to consider people (including officers) on a case by case basis, but these days it's getting much harder to give them the benefit of the doubt. Especially when I live in a city where they avoid responding to 911 calls as a way of strong-arming the city into increasing funding.
I'm not saying it's good. I'm saying it's valid. If someone were to tell me to stop focusing on one problem so I can focus on a problem that they care about more, the only logical response is: "Fuck you, die mad." My lack of knowledge of the economy doesn't invalidate my abundance of knowledge on the other social problems I focus on when I vote. And I may not be helping fix one problem, but I am fixing another.
Would it be preferable if I had more than a remedial understanding of the economy if I'm going to be voting for someone, so I could make sure I'm not making one problem worse while making one better? Sure. So ask me to do that instead. Don't ask me to shelve my values in order to focus on others. Ask me to add these other values to the ones I DO have. You don't endear people to your side by ridiculing or belittling theirs.
EDIT: The "You" in my scenario doesn't actually mean you. It's just the Dems out there that want us to "ease up on the alphabet people talk or else we'll scare the normies away" that I'm talking to.
Valid? Ok? To me it's an issue that in the end all of us have to walk and breath and look at the same time... If you only walk and breath then you probably will walk into traffic. And as I said, you don't need need a phd to vote for things you think will help you. Economic policy isn't just monetary policy or trade deals. It's also education, healthcare, infrastructure, voting rights, campaign laws add infinitum. The way I see it the democrat party are exploiting non economic issues so as to not deal with more important stuff that would cause actual change.
TBH I think the left has already scared of the normies on lgbtq stuff. As in, that ship has sailed.
Coulda fooled me. When I've moved on from trying to convince someone of something I tend to stop crying about them not doing as I asked. And yet, we still get tone policing from these people.
Coulda fooled me. When I've moved on from trying to convince someone of something I tend to stop crying about them not doing as I asked. And yet, we still get tone policing from these people.
If I've scared anyone away by talking about the LGBTQ, it's unfortunate, but that should be the end of the story, right? I shouldn't have to hear them tone policing about how I'm the reason they're not gonna vote Dem; because of my vocal support of the LGBTQ. If I've scared them away, then I wish they'd do just that: go away. They should go vote for some Republican candidate and wax poetic about how Elliot Paige is a pedo or whatever the hell Jordan Peterson is talking about.
But they don't. Which implies that they still agree with me, but just wish I wasn't so abrasive with my progressive messaging. Which they can kindly suck my asshole if that's the case. Stop fucking whining.
If I've scared anyone away by talking about the LGBTQ, it's unfortunate, but that should be the end of the story, right? I shouldn't have to hear them tone policing about how I'm the reason they're not gonna vote Dem; because of my vocal support of the LGBTQ. If I've scared them away, then I wish they'd do just that: go away. They should go vote for some Republican candidate and wax poetic about how Elliot Paige is a pedo or whatever the hell Jordan Peterson is talking about.
But they don't. Which implies that they still agree with me, but just wish I wasn't so abrasive with my progressive messaging. Which they can kindly suck my asshole if that's the case. Stop fucking whining.
Welp, no, it's not the end of the story. Because you still need their support and overall favorable public opinion to pass policy which helps. And of course, they won't go away. Because, you know, they are still essentially the majority. It's one thing to not care about a tiny percentage of the population being against thinks of lgbt folk and another one to not care about losing an important part of your base of support.
Welp, no, it's not the end of the story. Because you still need their support and overall favorable public opinion to pass policy which helps. And of course, they won't go away. Because, you know, they are still essentially the majority. It's one thing to not care about a tiny percentage of the population being against thinks of lgbt folk and another one to not care about losing an important part of your base of support.
If they're willing to let people (including themselves) lose their rights for the sake of not having to hear about LGBTQ issues so often, I can't fix that by just being quiet about what I value. I can't logic them out of a position they didn't logic themselves in to. They can just shout louder than I do about their own values. They don't get to tell me what I can/should talk about though.
If they're willing to let people (including themselves) lose their rights for the sake of not having to hear about LGBTQ issues so often, I can't fix that by just being quiet about what I value. I can't logic them out of a position they didn't logic themselves in to. They can just shout louder than I do about their own values. They don't get to tell me what I can/should talk about though.
I suppose though I would maintain this is a loosing stance. At that point you got to not only not caring about switching people over to your side but outright antagonizing folk that otherwise you could potentially win over. As for the bold part, you are wrong about that. Politics is and should be basically about logicing people out of positions they didn't logic themselves into. Without that discussions are revolved by who is the better shot and as far as I can tell the left wing still has zero chance against the right wing in this regard. If anything the right has been preparing for this for a few decades now.
Whatever. Of all the things to switch sides about, switching sides because you're annoyed about people being super vocal about the things you agree with in the first place is disgustingly stupid. Insufferable pussies, the lot of them.
Whatever. Of all the things to switch sides about, switching sides because you're annoyed about people being super vocal about the things you agree with in the first place is disgustingly stupid. Insufferable pussies, the lot of them.
I am not saying they are switching sides because of things they agree with, that's nonsense. Obviously the issue here is actual stuff they disagree with.
Yeah, me too basically. As far as I can tell there are actual concerns there but the response from the lgtb crowd is basically antagonizing, attempts at cancelling and outright anger at people who don't even hate them.
Yeah, me too basically. As far as I can tell there are actual concerns there but the response from the lgtb crowd is basically antagonizing, attempts at cancelling and outright anger at people who don't even hate them.
That's different too. I didn't say anything about canceling each other or attacking anyone on our side being okay. I'm talking very specifically about the centrists attacking the progressives for being too vocal about LGBTQ issues because they see it as cringey or annoying. When I say tone policing, I literally mean policing the tone in which someone is allowed to get their ideas across with. There's no hidden meaning, that's my exact stance.
I'm not sure what the "right thing" you're referring to is, but it has nothing to do with ego. This is the party of Ted Cruz, who is happy to polish the knob of the man who launched a campaign of how ugly his wife was. Party of Giuliani, who was nearly killed by a ferocious.. back pat? The party of Lauren Boebart, who married the same person who flashed a group of teens when he was in his mid-20s (her included). It's the party of "My cold dead hands!" but also "Thin layers of cloth prevent me from breathing and cause me to have panic attacks!"
Anyways to the point. The word you're looking for is wallets, not ego. I mean, triple-abortion-anti-abortionist-Boebart went from owning a shitty bar in Colorado to being worth $40M on a $174k annual salary.
I'm not sure what the "right thing" you're referring to is, but it has nothing to do with ego. This is the party of Ted Cruz, who is happy to polish the knob of the man who launched a campaign of how ugly his wife was. Party of Giuliani, who was nearly killed by a ferocious.. back pat? The party of Lauren Boebart, who married the same person who flashed a group of teens when he was in his mid-20s (her included). It's the party of "My cold dead hands!" but also "Thin layers of cloth prevent me from breathing and cause me to have panic attacks!"
Anyways to the point. The word you're looking for is wallets, not ego. I mean, triple-abortion-anti-abortionist-Boebart went from owning a shitty bar in Colorado to being worth $40M on a $174k annual salary.
Welp, no, it's not the end of the story. Because you still need their support and overall favorable public opinion to pass policy which helps. And of course, they won't go away. Because, you know, they are still essentially the majority. It's one thing to not care about a tiny percentage of the population being against thinks of lgbt folk and another one to not care about losing an important part of your base of support.
Problem is, if they refuse to support someone because of their "tone," especially when they could learn and evolve, then is their support worth it? Support seems quite flimsy and could change just because someone said saying a slur is not a good look.
I like to consider people (including officers) on a case by case basis, but these days it's getting much harder to give them the benefit of the doubt. Especially when I live in a city where they avoid responding to 911 calls as a way of strong-arming the city into increasing funding.
I think that's a "fair" approach, but the issue is with the police these issues are largely systemic. These police departments are set up to be this way, because yeah, a job like being a police officer is often a thankless job, so they protect their own before anyone else. So some people will see the public shitting on them and want to be defensive for them. Or they know a cop or someone in their family is a cop. But just think about the kind of job they have, and the systems in place and what's criminalized and what isn't, and who is more likely to interact with police on a regular basis and who isn't. And also what the police are actually there for at the end of the day, and no, it's not preventing crime or protecting citizens, sometimes that just happens by accident.
But those 3 are cut from the same cloth... what division is there?
Idk, I'm not sure how other conservatives feel about this comparison, but the impression you have is literally the complete opposite of how I see it. Democrats would never rally behind a candidate like Republicans did for Trump, Howard Dean was shitcanned after the Iowa Caucus for being too loud during a speech.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
--- Double Post Merged, ---
So now they're going after medical professionals that treat 10 year old rape victims. Please explain when the "pro life" part begins?
--- Double Post Merged, ---
And now conservatives are twisting this into an immigration and "border crisis" issue because the rapist may be here undocumented. Yet he's been living in Ohio for over 7 years... so will be interesting to see how they'll square that circle. Wait nvm, they never even try to do that.
