I mean, if you want a really easy example of the left being totally wrong, there's the ridiculous claim that Trump was "openly racist", to the point where it seemed like this dumb idea was the biggest thing Trump opponents kept bringing up.
Ugh, not that article again. I agree that the focus shouldn't have been on his racism - but come on, this is twenty-first century politics, don't go expecting
nuance or
sense.
Oh, sure, he's not "openly" racist. And the immigration thing is more... immigration-y than racism. Certainly racism and anti-immigration correlate, but anti-immigration doesn't make Trump racist.
It's the "you're a Mexican-American, you shouldn't be a judge." It's how he refused to rent to African Americans. It's this:
“And isn’t it funny. I’ve got black accountants at Trump Castle and Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it,” O’Donnell recalled Trump saying. “The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day.”
“I think the guy is lazy,” Trump said of a black employee, according to O’Donnell. “And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.”
It's how he's a birther. It's how he eats a taco bowl and says "I love Hispanics!" It's how he says “they don’t look like Indians to me... They don’t look like Indians to Indians.” It's how, after a BLM protestor is beaten up, he says “Maybe [the protester] should have been roughed up,” and “It was absolutely disgusting what he was doing.” It's how he stereotypes Jews. It's how he uses his African American supporters as tokens (“look at my African American over here”).
Yeah. He's pretty fucking racist. But he never said the word "n*gg*r", so on second thought he's actually okay! /sarcasm
In terms of "who is more inaccurate more often", economics is generally a wash (it's worth noting that econ majors tend to lean towards the Republicans), most things religious are better for the left (albeit regardless of how dumb creationism is, it's really irrelevant to the vast majority of people whether they learn evolution or not in schools), and I find that whoever considers themselves to be "in power" or "the majority" tends to get a lot worse on civil liberties, free speech, centralization, etc. The left is better on some matters of basic scientific literacy, but again, whether their actual policies are any better is up in the air.
...not really. Liberals acknowledge global warming - that
alone sets them far above Trump and his bros, and their policies reflect this IIRC. Not that liberals are supergreat, I mean they're all corrupt honestly, but they're my team dammit!
So far as examples of liberals being smug, the silliness immediately before the election (Hillary being predicted to be basically guaranteed the presidency
Oh, FFS, wrong =/= smug. It was the un-PC effect - nobody's going to tell a pollster that they voted for
Trump of all people (And on the more conspiratorial side, I suspect some shady action from those Russians...)
+ the racism silliness)
And how is that smug?
and the claims made after the election ("Trump won because of RACIST WHITE PEOPLE")
The usual SJW idiots. No sane liberal claimed that RACIST WHITES won Trump the election. And if they did, they're No True Liberal
come to mind. I think it's gotten a lot worse since 2012, since Democrats just kind of assumed that the Obama coalition would last indefinitely and that demographics guaranteed them victory
...not really? Why do you say that? Give
evidence, c'mon.
("Those damn old white people are the only ones that vote Republican and they're a shrinking demographic so we can win easily no matter what"). Except this doesn't work out because
* This assumes the Democrats can win 60-70%+ of Hispanics and 90%+ of African Americans forever
* It also assumes that young voters trend Democrat and stay Democrat for the rest of their lives
* It forgets that the Obama coalition actually included a pretty large number of white voters (esp. union members)
These premises were proven to be false yet a lot of Democrats seem to want to grasp onto them for some reason.
It's a troubling misconception, but it's certainly not new. "Just wait til the oldies die" is as old as dirt, and about as wrong as calling dirt "air".
They also seem more interested in insulting and attacking the people that won Trump the election rather than try to figure out why they supported Trump.
Blanket un-supported statement. There are a bunch of bitter and angry loud people on Facebook, but they aren't representative of liberals.
They're adopting the tried and true Bush tactic of saying "If you're not with us, you're with the insert distasteful group here" which worked so well for the Republicans that it lost them every branch of government back in 2008.
The enemy is certainly distastefully racist, yes. As for the "with us or against us," it's a problem, yes, but as you say, it's not exclusive to liberals. Heh, quite the opposite. It's more of a "human" issue than a "liberal" issue.
Yeah, I'd agree while he may not have been yelling the N-word on the corner, he was actively signaling to racists that he was their man, nudge nudge wink wink.
These premises were proven to be false yet a lot of Democrats seem to want to grasp onto them for some reason. They also seem more interested in insulting and attacking the people that won Trump the election rather than try to figure out why they supported Trump. They're adopting the tried and true Bush tactic of saying "If you're not with us, you're with the insert distasteful group here" which worked so well for the Republicans that it lost them every branch of government back in 2008.
I'd argue this is actually part of a bigger trend where people who are loud about being progressive get ever-more exclusive about whether you're following the rules or not. When they start attacking e.g. atheists for not being the right flavor of atheists, attacking women who aren't the right type of feminists etc, those are warning signs.
Hmm, odd. I think the opposite is true. Warning signs would be when someone assumes that just because someone labels themselves feminists/atheists/etc. they are immune to criticism regardless of what kind of person they actually are.
I know, that's a worrying trend in liberalism today. Especially when people are quick to call any disagreement "sexist" or similar. Regressive left and shit, cuuuuuuurse you.
The word "racist" is very powerful and has a lot of dangerous connotations attached to it. Used appropriately, it prevents David Duke from getting into the Senate. But every time it gets used against a Mitt Romney, a John McCain or even a Donald Trump, it loses a little bit of effectiveness. "Racist" becomes less "murderous Klansmen" or "Nazis" or even "David Duke" in the minds of people hearing it and more "Mitt Romney" or "John McCain" or "Donald Trump". If the trend continues, eventually "racist" just means "Republican" or "Conservative" and you've sacrificed the ability to prevent David Duke from getting into the Senate in exchange for some short term political benefit.
Good thing we have stalwart warriors like you preventing the common folk from misusing the word 'racist' to refer to people who don't like black people, instead of its true meaning.
But... what "true" meaning is he even using, and how exactly is Romney racist? I don't remember that...
Author
Topic: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: T+0 (Read 1413910 times)