Canibalistic left in US politics

[DrZoidberg]

I'm not American. I only see things filtered and warped through a very anti-American European lens. So it's hard to get a clear picture of what is happening over there.

But I see a trend and I'd love to hear from any Americans here if it's correct.

The liberals seem to hold their candidates to impossible standards. Any fuck-up or gaffe, no matter how minute spells doom for the candidate and they're fucked forever within that target group. Unless the candidate is black or a woman. Then anything goes.

While conservatives seem to have a more balanced view of the person representing them. aka "Yes, he's a sonnofabith, but he's our sonnovabitch".

We're today reached a situation where a liberal politician speaking has to be able to step out of the current context and imagine their words being used in any other context. If we thought politicians were full of shit before. We've basically told them they're not allowed to utter any form of intelligable speach. Or we will eat them alive.

There's a similar trend in Europe. I was just wondering if it's the same situation in USA.

 

[Patooka]

I think this guy is right:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKcWTN8f7zQ&t[/youtube]

There are only two people politicians worry about:

1)People who won't vote for them.

2)People who have stopped voted for them.

The 2010 midterm elections in the US scared Republicans shitless because people who used to vote for them have become category 2. The left is doing monkey see, monkey doo.

There is no party that truely represents "the left" in the US. Americans who believe in such ideals are becoming very aware of this, and instead of grabbing AR-10s, are voting at the polls.

Outside looking in, mind you.

 

[Angry Floof]

I'm not American. I only see things filtered and warped through a very anti-American European lens. So it's hard to get a clear picture of what is happening over there.

But I see a trend and I'd love to hear from any Americans here if it's correct.

The liberals seem to hold their candidates to impossible standards. Any fuck-up or gaffe, no matter how minute spells doom for the candidate and they're fucked forever within that target group. Unless the candidate is black or a woman. Then anything goes.

While conservatives seem to have a more balanced view of the person representing them. aka "Yes, he's a sonnofabith, but he's our sonnovabitch".

We're today reached a situation where a liberal politician speaking has to be able to step out of the current context and imagine their words being used in any other context. If we thought politicians were full of shit before. We've basically told them they're not allowed to utter any form of intelligable speach. Or we will eat them alive.

There's a similar trend in Europe. I was just wondering if it's the same situation in USA.

You definitely don't have a remotely accurate understanding. The GOP has become cultish to the point where nothing their favored authority figure does can faze them at all. There are no principles guiding them other than blind tribalism. Trump has not only broken every conservative principle and value, he has thrown them down and stomped on them and then took a giant dump on them and right wingers still support him and excuse his every depravity.

 

[JohnG]

I think this guy is right:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKcWTN8f7zQ&t[/youtube]

There are only two people politicians worry about:

1)People who won't vote for them.

2)People who have stopped voted for them.

The 2010 midterm elections in the US scared Republicans shitless because people who used to vote for them have become category 2. The left is doing monkey see, monkey doo.

There is no party that truely represents "the left" in the US. Americans who believe in such ideals are becoming very aware of this, and instead of grabbing AR-10s, are voting at the polls.

Outside looking in, mind you.

I hear this guys argument, and I wish for the left in the US things were better, but this election isn't Joe Schmoe Red against Jane Schmoe Blue.

 

[southernhybrid]

I'm not American. I only see things filtered and warped through a very anti-American European lens. So it's hard to get a clear picture of what is happening over there.

But I see a trend and I'd love to hear from any Americans here if it's correct.

The liberals seem to hold their candidates to impossible standards. Any fuck-up or gaffe, no matter how minute spells doom for the candidate and they're fucked forever within that target group. Unless the candidate is black or a woman. Then anything goes.

While conservatives seem to have a more balanced view of the person representing them. aka "Yes, he's a sonnofabith, but he's our sonnovabitch".

We're today reached a situation where a liberal politician speaking has to be able to step out of the current context and imagine their words being used in any other context. If we thought politicians were full of shit before. We've basically told them they're not allowed to utter any form of intelligable speach. Or we will eat them alive.

There's a similar trend in Europe. I was just wondering if it's the same situation in USA.

No, that's not what's happening. I will give you my opinion if it helps.

Republicans are like sheep. Once they have a candidate, no matter how bad he/she is, they will support the person no matter what. Trump is the worst example of this. During the primaries in 2016, most well known Republicans like Linsey Graham and Ted Cruz, for example, told the truth about Trump. They criticized him harshly etc. Once he became their candidate, they publicly backed him up, even when they knew he was harmful to the country. Like the sheep that they are, they supported him regardless of how much damage he was capable of doing.

Democrats are more like cats, very diverse with a lot of different opinions. Dems include some on the far left fringe, center left, left of center, and even right of center. ( by traditional standards ) During the primaries, there was a lot of criticism of Biden, especially from the Bernie supporters. He wasn't progressive enough for them etc. Like any politician with decades of experience, Biden has plenty of baggage. Like every human, he's made mistakes, often because when a policy is established, there are usually unforeseen consequences that manifest themselves in time.

But, once Biden was chosen as the candidate, most Dems have accepted him and regardless if they are excited about him, lukewarm about him, or feel he's the lesser of two evils, they will support him. But, Dems tend to be more critical of their own compared to Republicans. This is nothing new. Still, most of the criticism of Biden is coming from the Right. Those on the right are the ones who are trying to make it seem as if Biden is cognitively impaired, when in essence it's their own candidate who shows symptoms of mental impairment.

Currently, thanks to Trump and his supporters, the biggest problem is that Biden is being perceived as a far left socialist, while nothing could be further from the truth. America is more of a centrist country traditionally, with some swings from side to side. This perception of Biden as being a socialist is being perpetuated by the Right, not the Left. Biden is a moderate liberal, who has always been open minded and willing to compromise to get things done. If anything, he does seem to be moving a bit leftward, but nothing like he's being perceived by most Republicans.

In recent months, I haven't heard anyone of importance on the Left criticize Biden, with the exception of Bernie Sanders. This week, Bernie has been critical of Biden and is pushing Biden to be more progressive. I wish he'd shut his mouth and help get Biden elected, then after the election, the cats can fight it out and see how much progress they can make.

People who are left of Biden are sometimes very irrational, imo, as some of them aren't happy with anything less than what they consider perfection. Perhaps that's what you mean by your comments, but these people are the minority. I'm happy to say that most of the Bernie supporters who I know personally are acting much smarter this time around then they did when Clinton was the candidate. A lot of them voted 3rd party last time, but I doubt they will be fooled again.

Your comments about women and Black folks are pure bullshit. Clinton was brutally criticized by both the right and the left. Many Dems voted third party due to their hatred of her. Obama was often perceived as too moderate by the Dems, probably because he tried to be the president of the entire country and not just his base. If Dems preferred Black folks or women as candidates, Biden wouldn't be our nominee. And, I personally know some Black females who don't like Harris, but they are still voting for the Biden/Harris ticket. Yes. We would like to see a more diverse government with more women and minorities in leadership positions, but the majority of Dems don't simply support a candidate based on race or gender. If that was true, Biden wouldn't be our nominee, now would he?

 

[Elixir]

What SH says. Plus -
It's hard to herd cats.

 

[Angry Floof]

What SH says. Plus -
It's hard to herd cats.

Cats do lean liberal for sure.

 

[WAB]

What SH says. Plus -
It's hard to herd cats.

So cats have herd immunity?

 

[TSwizzle]

I'm not American. I only see things filtered and warped through a very anti-American European lens. So it's hard to get a clear picture of what is happening over there.

But I see a trend and I'd love to hear from any Americans here if it's correct.

The liberals seem to hold their candidates to impossible standards. Any fuck-up or gaffe, no matter how minute spells doom for the candidate and they're fucked forever within that target group. Unless the candidate is black or a woman. Then anything goes.

Do you have any examples ?

 

[Politesse]

I'm not American. I only see things filtered and warped through a very anti-American European lens. So it's hard to get a clear picture of what is happening over there.

But I see a trend and I'd love to hear from any Americans here if it's correct.

The liberals seem to hold their candidates to impossible standards. Any fuck-up or gaffe, no matter how minute spells doom for the candidate and they're fucked forever within that target group. Unless the candidate is black or a woman. Then anything goes.

While conservatives seem to have a more balanced view of the person representing them. aka "Yes, he's a sonnofabith, but he's our sonnovabitch".

We're today reached a situation where a liberal politician speaking has to be able to step out of the current context and imagine their words being used in any other context. If we thought politicians were full of shit before. We've basically told them they're not allowed to utter any form of intelligable speach. Or we will eat them alive.

There's a similar trend in Europe. I was just wondering if it's the same situation in USA.

As an American, I can see where the news media would give this impression, but do not really agree with either characterization. The grain of truth is that conservatives are much more likely to present an outward face of Party solidarity, especially when talking to outsiders. Their politicians cross party lines less often, especially in the last fifteen years or so. They will also "eat their own", though, when the right issue comes up. Even Trump, with his singular personality cult, is hardly above criticism from the political right. If anything, one hears a lot of sentences in red counties/states that begin with "I'm not a Trump fan, but..." hardly a ringing endorsement. We have a saying in my country, "damned with faint praise." That's Trump, weaker than he looks.

On the other side, political criticism is indeed a principal virtue of the traditional liberal (or federalist before there were liberals), and they are in general proud of their willingness to criticize their politicians even if they are allies. But you are wrong that minorities are somehow exempt from this (I do not know how, even from a distance, you have failed to notice the vitriol slung at Clinton four years ago and Harris now, not just by conservatives) and it is not unlimited in scale either. A politician who makes a gaffe may eventually be forgiven in the public mind, they aren't necessarily canceled just because they aree criticized. So "Cannibalistic" seems quite hyperbolic to me.

 

[Elixir]

....one hears a lot of sentences in red counties/states that begin with "I'm not a Trump fan, but..."

Yes, there are a LOT of "I'm not a Trumpsucker"s. They're Republicans, and their "herd mentality" requires that they toe the Party line, and not tell too much of the truth about Dear Leader. Many of them still insist that Trump would concede if he lost an election.

More important, there are two "n"s in cannibal.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'm not American. I only see things filtered and warped through a very anti-American European lens. So it's hard to get a clear picture of what is happening over there.

But I see a trend and I'd love to hear from any Americans here if it's correct.

The liberals seem to hold their candidates to impossible standards. Any fuck-up or gaffe, no matter how minute spells doom for the candidate and they're fucked forever within that target group. Unless the candidate is black or a woman. Then anything goes.

While conservatives seem to have a more balanced view of the person representing them. aka "Yes, he's a sonnofabith, but he's our sonnovabitch".

We're today reached a situation where a liberal politician speaking has to be able to step out of the current context and imagine their words being used in any other context. If we thought politicians were full of shit before. We've basically told them they're not allowed to utter any form of intelligable speach. Or we will eat them alive.

There's a similar trend in Europe. I was just wondering if it's the same situation in USA.

No, that's not what's happening. I will give you my opinion if it helps.

Republicans are like sheep. Once they have a candidate, no matter how bad he/she is, they will support the person no matter what. Trump is the worst example of this. During the primaries in 2016, most well known Republicans like Linsey Graham and Ted Cruz, for example, told the truth about Trump. They criticized him harshly etc. Once he became their candidate, they publicly backed him up, even when they knew he was harmful to the country. Like the sheep that they are, they supported him regardless of how much damage he was capable of doing.

Democrats are more like cats, very diverse with a lot of different opinions. Dems include some on the far left fringe, center left, left of center, and even right of center. ( by traditional standards ) During the primaries, there was a lot of criticism of Biden, especially from the Bernie supporters. He wasn't progressive enough for them etc. Like any politician with decades of experience, Biden has plenty of baggage. Like every human, he's made mistakes, often because when a policy is established, there are usually unforeseen consequences that manifest themselves in time.

Don't buy it. You might as well say that our side has indipendent thinkers while their side is stupid. Everybody thinks they are the cats and the other side is sheep. I think that's especially true of the people who really are sheep. You just formulated the worst kind of "us vs them" xenophobic rhetoric I've seen. Sorry if it sounds harsh.

I don't think Republicans are any dumber than Democrats. I do think they have other values and prioritise other things. That's interesting to discuss. But any "us good. they bad" discussion... please spare me.

But, once Biden was chosen as the candidate, most Dems have accepted him and regardless if they are excited about him, lukewarm about him, or feel he's the lesser of two evils, they will support him. But, Dems tend to be more critical of their own compared to Republicans. This is nothing new. Still, most of the criticism of Biden is coming from the Right. Those on the right are the ones who are trying to make it seem as if Biden is cognitively impaired, when in essence it's their own candidate who shows symptoms of mental impairment.

Currently, thanks to Trump and his supporters, the biggest problem is that Biden is being perceived as a far left socialist, while nothing could be further from the truth. America is more of a centrist country traditionally, with some swings from side to side. This perception of Biden as being a socialist is being perpetuated by the Right, not the Left. Biden is a moderate liberal, who has always been open minded and willing to compromise to get things done. If anything, he does seem to be moving a bit leftward, but nothing like he's being perceived by most Republicans.

FYI. Seen from a European perspective, Bernie Sanders is centrist. Everybody else in USA is right wing. The scales are radically shifted between Europe and USA.

So it's a bit amusing hear you refer to USA as centrist. I'm sure that's how it looks from an American perspective. But not seen from over here.

In recent months, I haven't heard anyone of importance on the Left criticize Biden, with the exception of Bernie Sanders. This week, Bernie has been critical of Biden and is pushing Biden to be more progressive. I wish he'd shut his mouth and help get Biden elected, then after the election, the cats can fight it out and see how much progress they can make.

People who are left of Biden are sometimes very irrational, imo, as some of them aren't happy with anything less than what they consider perfection. Perhaps that's what you mean by your comments, but these people are the minority. I'm happy to say that most of the Bernie supporters who I know personally are acting much smarter this time around then they did when Clinton was the candidate. A lot of them voted 3rd party last time, but I doubt they will be fooled again.

Your comments about women and Black folks are pure bullshit. Clinton was brutally criticized by both the right and the left. Many Dems voted third party due to their hatred of her. Obama was often perceived as too moderate by the Dems, probably because he tried to be the president of the entire country and not just his base. If Dems preferred Black folks or women as candidates, Biden wouldn't be our nominee. And, I personally know some Black females who don't like Harris, but they are still voting for the Biden/Harris ticket. Yes. We would like to see a more diverse government with more women and minorities in leadership positions, but the majority of

Dems don't simply support a candidate based on race or gender. If that was true, Biden wouldn't be our nominee, now would he?

It could be a tactic to get back the votes lost to trump in the 2016 election. An old white dude is a pretty safe candidate if you want to impress racists and win them back. Not only do Democrats have lofty ideals, they also want to win the election.

Intersectionalism seems to be big in USA. In a way it's not in Europe, due to our countries being, more or less monocultures. Our minorities are clearly outsiders in every way, and our integration is, for practical purposes, mostly about helping minorities adapt to the majority. It's a different scenario all together. While it's nice that we get non-whites in government positions it's not seen as any kind of victory for inclusion. The assumption is still that any politician will be white. It's just nice if they're not. It's not seen a failure of representation. It's interesting to see it contrasted with feminism where it's a completely different vibe on that discussion. Then representation by women in all parts of society is a major priority. Just giving you a European perspective.

 

[southernhybrid]

Don't buy it. You might as well say that our side has indipendent thinkers while their side is stupid. Everybody thinks they are the cats and the other side is sheep. I think that's especially true of the people who really are sheep. You just formulated the worst kind of "us vs them" xenophobic rhetoric I've seen. Sorry if it sounds harsh.

I don't think Republicans are any dumber than Democrats. I do think they have other values and prioritise other things. That's interesting to discuss. But any "us good. they bad" discussion... please spare me.

But, once Biden was chosen as the candidate, most Dems have accepted him and regardless if they are excited about him, lukewarm about him, or feel he's the lesser of two evils, they will support him. But, Dems tend to be more critical of their own compared to Republicans. This is nothing new. Still, most of the criticism of Biden is coming from the Right. Those on the right are the ones who are trying to make it seem as if Biden is cognitively impaired, when in essence it's their own candidate who shows symptoms of mental impairment.

Currently, thanks to Trump and his supporters, the biggest problem is that Biden is being perceived as a far left socialist, while nothing could be further from the truth. America is more of a centrist country traditionally, with some swings from side to side. This perception of Biden as being a socialist is being perpetuated by the Right, not the Left. Biden is a moderate liberal, who has always been open minded and willing to compromise to get things done. If anything, he does seem to be moving a bit leftward, but nothing like he's being perceived by most Republicans.

FYI. Seen from a European perspective, Bernie Sanders is centrist. Everybody else in USA is right wing. The scales are radically shifted between Europe and USA.

So it's a bit amusing hear you refer to USA as centrist. I'm sure that's how it looks from an American perspective. But not seen from over here.

In recent months, I haven't heard anyone of importance on the Left criticize Biden, with the exception of Bernie Sanders. This week, Bernie has been critical of Biden and is pushing Biden to be more progressive. I wish he'd shut his mouth and help get Biden elected, then after the election, the cats can fight it out and see how much progress they can make.

People who are left of Biden are sometimes very irrational, imo, as some of them aren't happy with anything less than what they consider perfection. Perhaps that's what you mean by your comments, but these people are the minority. I'm happy to say that most of the Bernie supporters who I know personally are acting much smarter this time around then they did when Clinton was the candidate. A lot of them voted 3rd party last time, but I doubt they will be fooled again.

Your comments about women and Black folks are pure bullshit. Clinton was brutally criticized by both the right and the left. Many Dems voted third party due to their hatred of her. Obama was often perceived as too moderate by the Dems, probably because he tried to be the president of the entire country and not just his base. If Dems preferred Black folks or women as candidates, Biden wouldn't be our nominee. And, I personally know some Black females who don't like Harris, but they are still voting for the Biden/Harris ticket. Yes. We would like to see a more diverse government with more women and minorities in leadership positions, but the majority of

Dems don't simply support a candidate based on race or gender. If that was true, Biden wouldn't be our nominee, now would he?

It could be a tactic to get back the votes lost to trump in the 2016 election. An old white dude is a pretty safe candidate if you want to impress racists and win them back. Not only do Democrats have lofty ideals, they also want to win the election.

Intersectionalism seems to be big in USA. In a way it's not in Europe, due to our countries being, more or less monocultures. Our minorities are clearly outsiders in every way, and our integration is, for practical purposes, mostly about helping minorities adapt to the majority. It's a different scenario all together. While it's nice that we get non-whites in government positions it's not seen as any kind of victory for inclusion. The assumption is still that any politician will be white. It's just nice if they're not. It's not seen a failure of representation. It's interesting to see it contrasted with feminism where it's a completely different vibe on that discussion. Then representation by women in all parts of society is a major priority. Just giving you a European perspective.

I'm sorry but you have absolutely no idea what's going on in my country, as evidenced by your ignorant reply to my post.

You've made assumptions that weren't even mentioned in my reply, so I see no point in discussing this with you any longer.

 

[Deepak]

I'm not American. I only see things filtered and warped through a very anti-American European lens. So it's hard to get a clear picture of what is happening over there.

But I see a trend and I'd love to hear from any Americans here if it's correct.

The liberals seem to hold their candidates to impossible standards. Any fuck-up or gaffe, no matter how minute spells doom for the candidate and they're fucked forever within that target group. Unless the candidate is black or a woman. Then anything goes.

While conservatives seem to have a more balanced view of the person representing them. aka "Yes, he's a sonnofabith, but he's our sonnovabitch".

We're today reached a situation where a liberal politician speaking has to be able to step out of the current context and imagine their words being used in any other context. If we thought politicians were full of shit before. We've basically told them they're not allowed to utter any form of intelligable speach. Or we will eat them alive.

There's a similar trend in Europe. I was just wondering if it's the same situation in USA.

No, that's not what's happening. I will give you my opinion if it helps.

Republicans are like sheep. Once they have a candidate, no matter how bad he/she is, they will support the person no matter what. Trump is the worst example of this. During the primaries in 2016, most well known Republicans like Linsey Graham and Ted Cruz, for example, told the truth about Trump. They criticized him harshly etc. Once he became their candidate, they publicly backed him up, even when they knew he was harmful to the country. Like the sheep that they are, they supported him regardless of how much damage he was capable of doing.

You're describing an old politics. This was the Republicans coalescing around Bob Dole even though he had no chance of winning. Their tradition has always been to pick the next guy then everyone rallies around him, but in olden days it was the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research types that were ultimately selecting the candidate and the rabble were the ones falling in line. What was characteristically different in the latest election is that the rabble were able to drive the agenda going into the convention, and Trump and his ilk, like Bannon and Stone were able to activate the worst elements of the Republican base. This is simultaneous with the payoff of a long-time Russian investment in conservative corners like the NRA (https://web.archive.org/web/2018040...d83ff6-29d3-11e7-a616-d7c8a68c1a66_story.html). Paul Ryan, Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, and anyone representing the old guard were run out of Washington. I've heard idle speculation that Trump has dirt on Graham, therefore Graham is his supporter, but the clear and obvious reason is that he can either support Trump, or get replaced in a primary. It's a realization that they, in doing whatever they could to consolidate power and disable the Dems, missed the power center in their own party shifting under their feet. Graham or Cruz or any of them have two main objectives - maintaining office and enriching their benefactors and that means they can't do anything to risk their position with the Trump wing of the party. That is to say, the economic elite used to use the authoritarians in the party, but the situation has reversed. These aren't so much sheep as these are people of the land. The common clay of the new Republican party. The pathology on the right is only going to get worse with time.

I will say that I'm seeing a lot of activity online that I didn't see from the Left in the last election, so it's possible they've learned some lesson, at least at the party level. That said, it should be said that the American left doesn't have single-issue voters as much as single-focus voters. They're more likely to withhold a vote for a candidate unless they see explicit support for their issue, whereas the Republicans get votes for their candidates because they're in the party and the party supports the issue.

 

[southernhybrid]

I'm not American. I only see things filtered and warped through a very anti-American European lens. So it's hard to get a clear picture of what is happening over there.

But I see a trend and I'd love to hear from any Americans here if it's correct.

The liberals seem to hold their candidates to impossible standards. Any fuck-up or gaffe, no matter how minute spells doom for the candidate and they're fucked forever within that target group. Unless the candidate is black or a woman. Then anything goes.

While conservatives seem to have a more balanced view of the person representing them. aka "Yes, he's a sonnofabith, but he's our sonnovabitch".

We're today reached a situation where a liberal politician speaking has to be able to step out of the current context and imagine their words being used in any other context. If we thought politicians were full of shit before. We've basically told them they're not allowed to utter any form of intelligable speach. Or we will eat them alive.

There's a similar trend in Europe. I was just wondering if it's the same situation in USA.

No, that's not what's happening. I will give you my opinion if it helps.

Republicans are like sheep. Once they have a candidate, no matter how bad he/she is, they will support the person no matter what. Trump is the worst example of this. During the primaries in 2016, most well known Republicans like Linsey Graham and Ted Cruz, for example, told the truth about Trump. They criticized him harshly etc. Once he became their candidate, they publicly backed him up, even when they knew he was harmful to the country. Like the sheep that they are, they supported him regardless of how much damage he was capable of doing.

You're describing an old politics. This was the Republicans coalescing around Bob Dole even though he had no chance of winning. Their tradition has always been to pick the next guy then everyone rallies around him, but in olden days it was the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research types that were ultimately selecting the candidate and the rabble were the ones falling in line. What was characteristically different in the latest election is that the rabble were able to drive the agenda going into the convention, and Trump and his ilk, like Bannon and Stone were able to activate the worst elements of the Republican base. This is simultaneous with the payoff of a long-time Russian investment in conservative corners like the NRA (https://web.archive.org/web/2018040...d83ff6-29d3-11e7-a616-d7c8a68c1a66_story.html). Paul Ryan, Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, and anyone representing the old guard were run out of Washington. I've heard idle speculation that Trump has dirt on Graham, therefore Graham is his supporter, but the clear and obvious reason is that he can either support Trump, or get replaced in a primary. It's a realization that they, in doing whatever they could to consolidate power and disable the Dems, missed the power center in their own party shifting under their feet. Graham or Cruz or any of them have two main objectives - maintaining office and enriching their benefactors and that means they can't do anything to risk their position with the Trump wing of the party. That is to say, the economic elite used to use the authoritarians in the party, but the situation has reversed. These aren't so much sheep as these are people of the land. The common clay of the new Republican party. The pathology on the right is only going to get worse with time.

I will say that I'm seeing a lot of activity online that I didn't see from the Left in the last election, so it's possible they've learned some lesson, at least at the party level. That said, it should be said that the American left doesn't have single-issue voters as much as single-focus voters. They're more likely to withhold a vote for a candidate unless they see explicit support for their issue, whereas the Republicans get votes for their candidates because they're in the party and the party supports the issue.

Interesting that you mention 1992. The Republicans in 1992 may have supported Dole in the primaries, but not in the general. Lots of them voted for Ross Perot, which may have given Clinton his victory. Apparently, unlike the cats in the Democratic Party, the sheep in the Republican Party have pretty much learned their lesson regarding the stupidity of voting 3rd party. If anything, I'd say that the Republicans were less sheep like in 1992, compared to now.

I do agree that most Republicans now are far more interested in maintaining their own power than trying to do what's good for the country.

What I see all around me now, is that it's the Democrats are trying to unite behind their nominee for a change. In 2016, there were far too many who voted third party due to their dislike of Hillary Clinton, which in some cases was sexist. I actually knew voters, including some older women who told me they couldn't imagine voting for a female for president. Others told me that they couldn't vote for her because they didn't like her. What does like have to do with voting for someone? You don't have to like a candidate to realize that he or she is a much better alternative than the opponent.

Perhaps one's perspective is partly dependent on where they live. Where I live, Republicans tend to march lockstep behind Trump, regardless of whether or not he has their best interests in mind. I have yet to meet a Trump supporter locally who has abandoned him. I know that a small percentage of his base is now admittedly ashamed for supporting him and will vote for Biden in the general, but they are not that common.

The Democrats didn't unite behind Biden until well into the primaries. Some are still disheartened by the nominee, and I fear they won't vote in the general. Imo, if you don't vote, you have no right to complain. One candidate is always a better choice than the alternative. There should never be a purity test before one decides to support a candidate.

Democrats are always critical of the presidents they elect. Right after Obama was elected, Dems criticized him for not being liberal enough, for not doing enough for Black folks, etc. Democrats need to be more realistic. We don't live in a leftist country. We live in a centrist, some would call it a center right country. Trump on the other hand just wants to be a dictator. He has displayed his autocratic tendencies in remarkable ways that I never thought possible in my country. Sadly, too many Republicans are perfectly okay with this.

And while there are a small member of decent Republicans who are finally breaking away from him, his base in as solid as a rock. He still has the support of at least 90 percent of Republicans.

I hope that Dems will support Biden and as I said earlier, the cats can fight out the details after they gain control of things. Right now, isn't the time for Bernie or anyone else left of Biden to criticize him. Unity is what is needed among Democrats right now, as Trump is far too dangerous to have another term.

Anyway, I've made my point. I do agree with some of what Deepak has posted. I just think it's a bit ironic that he mentioned the 1992 election, an election when the Republicans were anything but united. Today is very different from 1992, when the majority of Republicans think that Donnie has come to save them from the evil socialist Democrats. Look how they've tried to paint Biden as a far left socialist! And, lots of them are believing that shit. If that's not sheep like behavior, I don't know what is.

 

[Deepak]

Interesting that you mention 1992. The Republicans in 1992 may have supported Dole in the primaries, but not in the general. Lots of them voted for Ross Perot, which may have given Clinton his victory. Apparently, unlike the cats in the Democratic Party, the sheep in the Republican Party have pretty much learned their lesson regarding the stupidity of voting 3rd party. If anything, I'd say that the Republicans were less sheep like in 1992, compared to now.

I still don't buy this theory of the big third-party sucking sound. Dole got about the same number of votes as Bush the Elder in the previous election, and Perot got less than half his '92 total. So if he stole Republican voters in the first run, what exactly happened in in 96? He routed them to the Caymans?

My point was specifically relating to the Republican candidate selection by the party, and that Trump's support with the Chuds is what cemented his nomination.

Dole was given the nod, in a fairly warm primary, but lost in the general because he didn't have he support of the Chuds.

The Chuds are, and now realize they are, the central power in the Republican party.

None of these are incongruous statements...

 

[Politesse]

You're describing an old politics. This was the Republicans coalescing around Bob Dole even though he had no chance of winning. Their tradition has always been to pick the next guy then everyone rallies around him, but in olden days it was the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research types that were ultimately selecting the candidate and the rabble were the ones falling in line. What was characteristically different in the latest election is that the rabble were able to drive the agenda going into the convention, and Trump and his ilk, like Bannon and Stone were able to activate the worst elements of the Republican base. This is simultaneous with the payoff of a long-time Russian investment in conservative corners like the NRA (https://web.archive.org/web/2018040...d83ff6-29d3-11e7-a616-d7c8a68c1a66_story.html). Paul Ryan, Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, and anyone representing the old guard were run out of Washington. I've heard idle speculation that Trump has dirt on Graham, therefore Graham is his supporter, but the clear and obvious reason is that he can either support Trump, or get replaced in a primary. It's a realization that they, in doing whatever they could to consolidate power and disable the Dems, missed the power center in their own party shifting under their feet. Graham or Cruz or any of them have two main objectives - maintaining office and enriching their benefactors and that means they can't do anything to risk their position with the Trump wing of the party. That is to say, the economic elite used to use the authoritarians in the party, but the situation has reversed. These aren't so much sheep as these are people of the land. The common clay of the new Republican party. The pathology on the right is only going to get worse with time.

I will say that I'm seeing a lot of activity online that I didn't see from the Left in the last election, so it's possible they've learned some lesson, at least at the party level. That said, it should be said that the American left doesn't have single-issue voters as much as single-focus voters. They're more likely to withhold a vote for a candidate unless they see explicit support for their issue, whereas the Republicans get votes for their candidates because they're in the party and the party supports the issue.

Interesting that you mention 1992. The Republicans in 1992 may have supported Dole in the primaries, but not in the general. Lots of them voted for Ross Perot, which may have given Clinton his victory. Apparently, unlike the cats in the Democratic Party, the sheep in the Republican Party have pretty much learned their lesson regarding the stupidity of voting 3rd party. If anything, I'd say that the Republicans were less sheep like in 1992, compared to now.

I do agree that most Republicans now are far more interested in maintaining their own power than trying to do what's good for the country.

What I see all around me now, is that it's the Democrats are trying to unite behind their nominee for a change. In 2016, there were far too many who voted third party due to their dislike of Hillary Clinton, which in some cases was sexist. I actually knew voters, including some older women who told me they couldn't imagine voting for a female for president. Others told me that they couldn't vote for her because they didn't like her. What does like have to do with voting for someone? You don't have to like a candidate to realize that he or she is a much better alternative than the opponent.

Perhaps one's perspective is partly dependent on where they live. Where I live, Republicans tend to march lockstep behind Trump, regardless of whether or not he has their best interests in mind. I have yet to meet a Trump supporter locally who has abandoned him. I know that a small percentage of his base is now admittedly ashamed for supporting him and will vote for Biden in the general, but they are not that common.

The Democrats didn't unite behind Biden until well into the primaries. Some are still disheartened by the nominee, and I fear they won't vote in the general. Imo, if you don't vote, you have no right to complain. One candidate is always a better choice than the alternative. There should never be a purity test before one decides to support a candidate.

Democrats are always critical of the presidents they elect. Right after Obama was elected, Dems criticized him for not being liberal enough, for not doing enough for Black folks, etc. Democrats need to be more realistic. We don't live in a leftist country. We live in a centrist, some would call it a center right country. Trump on the other hand just wants to be a dictator. He has displayed his autocratic tendencies in remarkable ways that I never thought possible in my country. Sadly, too many Republicans are perfectly okay with this.

And while there are a small member of decent Republicans who are finally breaking away from him, his base in as solid as a rock. He still has the support of at least 90 percent of Republicans.

I hope that Dems will support Biden and as I said earlier, the cats can fight out the details after they gain control of things. Right now, isn't the time for Bernie or anyone else left of Biden to criticize him. Unity is what is needed among Democrats right now, as Trump is far too dangerous to have another term.

Anyway, I've made my point. I do agree with some of what Deepak has posted. I just think it's a bit ironic that he mentioned the 1992 election, an election when the Republicans were anything but united. Today is very different from 1992, when the majority of Republicans think that Donnie has come to save them from the evil socialist Democrats. Look how they've tried to paint Biden as a far left socialist! And, lots of them are believing that shit. If that's not sheep like behavior, I don't know what is.

They always were the more fascististic party, even before the supposed ideological shift. Republicanism and the ideal of a national democracy will never co-exist comfortably.

 

[southernhybrid]

They always were the more fascististic party, even before the supposed ideological shift. Republicanism and the ideal of a national democracy will never co-exist comfortably.

Sure. There's an element of truth in that. Maybe not if we go back far enough, but certainly going in that direction in my lifetime, and obviously in your lifetime, given that you're almost 40 years younger than I am. .

This discussion keeps reminding me of a comment that an 80 plus year old woman who I used to work with during my final years prior to retirement, once said to me. Miss Jean, as we called her, was a under paid worker her entire life. She worked well into her 80s as a cook in the long term facility where I provided the nursing assessments. One day while we were discussing politics during our lunch break, she said, "My daddy told me that the Republican Party is the party of the rich and the Democratic Party is the party for everyone else." While the Dems are far from perfect, there was an element of truth in those words too.

I just saw a former friend of mine proudly posting her Trump sign on Facebook, a place I rarely visit anymore. The woman is a well educated nurse and a proud member of the Trump cult. She depends on SS and Medicare, and has to work part time to support herself, at age 69. There is no reasoning with the members of the Trump cult. It's very sad to see a good person become infected by a cult. But, I digress.

 

[Angry Floof]

The problem with conservatism and fascism is that conservative ideology, even at its best and most reasonable and humane, contains all the elements that appeal to fascistic, authoritarian minds. Fundamentalist religionists and right wing authoritarian followers, in as far as they are political, will be poltically conservative and will continuously pressure conservative parties to lean more right and more authoritarian.

Conservative ideologies do not appeal to people who are more open, tolerant, egalitarian, and inclusive in their perception and understanding of the world. Liberal ideologies do not appeal to people who are more closed, intolerant, us vs. them, punitive, authoritarian, and exclusive in their perception and understanding of the world.

If Jesus Christ walked among us, he'd be more liberal and progressive than pretty much anyone in US politics.