Make Liberalism Great Again

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
You realize people on the right have tried to damp down racist speech by David Duke without much effect. Nobody is censoring them. Are you also saying that somehow we should censor this small segment of the extreme left?

Are you just voicing disapproval? Probably as ineffective as people on the right voicing disapproval of David Duke and Trump's rhetoric.

I disagree that this is the reason why the Rust Belt states went to Trump. This article covers a much larger issue than the hurt feelings of a few racists.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-rural-idUSKBN13625Q

Semi-retired Wisconsin pig farmer John Lader does not think much of Donald Trump as a messenger, but voted for what he described as the Republican president-elect's message of change and economic hope for America.

"The last few years, there hasn't been much optimism and hope among working people in rural areas in this country," said Lader, 65, who lives in the farmland outside the southern Wisconsin city of Janesville.

Around 65 miles (105 km) to the northeast in the state's biggest city of Milwaukee, Jose Boni, who cleans offices at a local university and rents out several homes, heard a different message: Trump's plan to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border and vow to deport the estimated 11 million immigrants who are in the United States illegally, most of whom are Hispanic.

"He doesn't care about our community or working people, he only cares about himself," said Boni, 57, an Ecuador-born U.S. citizen.

The different worlds of Lader and Boni help illustrate the rural-urban divide that was critical to the outcome of Tuesday's U.S. presidential election.
I don't think anyone should be censored

Lader's opinion is pretty much exactly what Sanders said on one of the morning shows this week. Dem's lost the rust belt because of the economy. They've focused too much on identity politics and not enough on the real economic concerns of middle-class America. Buck would have you believe otherwise; working class whites and economic anxiety
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
I don't think anyone should be censored

Lader's opinion is pretty much exactly what Sanders said on one of the morning shows this week. Dem's lost the rust belt because of the economy. They've focused too much on identity politics and not enough on the real economic concerns of middle-class America. Buck would have you believe otherwise; working class whites and economic anxiety
Completely agree with you here. Clinton's "stronger together" slogan was intended to bring people together and it just landed like a lead balloon with no effect. She should have learned something from her husband who ran on the slogan "it's the economy, stupid".

Your focus on PC culture is overwrought. But I do agree there is no need to engage in name calling, even when justified.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
I don't think anyone should be censored

Lader's opinion is pretty much exactly what Sanders said on one of the morning shows this week. Dem's lost the rust belt because of the economy. They've focused too much on identity politics and not enough on the real economic concerns of middle-class America. Buck would have you believe otherwise; working class whites and economic anxiety
except for the fact that none of the data bears out any "economic anxiety" among these voters.
 

londonfog

Well-Known Member
I don't think anyone should be censored

Lader's opinion is pretty much exactly what Sanders said on one of the morning shows this week. Dem's lost the rust belt because of the economy. They've focused too much on identity politics and not enough on the real economic concerns of middle-class America. Buck would have you believe otherwise; working class whites and economic anxiety
I was told that you defend rapist, now seeing how you would defend racist I tend to think it's all true
 

londonfog

Well-Known Member
Completely agree with you here. Clinton's "stronger together" slogan was intended to bring people together and it just landed like a lead balloon with no effect. She should have learned something from her husband who ran on the slogan "it's the economy, stupid".

Your focus on PC culture is overwrought. But I do agree there is no need to engage in name calling, even when justified.
Fuck That !!!! This the Trump era. We need to embrace it
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Fuck That !!!! This the Trump era. We need to embrace it
I don't care if you do. I find that I can get another person completely enraged without resorting to name calling and so, I see no need for it. But if what you say is truth then go for it.

I don't think that directly calling Trump and many of his supporters -- racist -- is wrong or even name calling.

I also laugh out loud when I read that calling racists -- racist -- lost the election for Clinton or will prove to be fatal to Democrats chances going forward. Clinton proved to be a worse candidate than Trump in that she wasn't able to get enough people to support her in key states. She didn't learn the lesson from Bill's campaign that the first thing somebody should think about the candidate is that they are focused on jobs and economic well being. It was respectable that she didn't shy away from the subject of racism in the alt right unlike the things Trump said but it should have been the second or third thing somebody should think about, which is why "stronger together" was a stupid slogan. And so, what Buck says in RIU is irrelevant in the big picture.

Also whether Bernie could have done better is unknowable and not worth debating so far as I'm concerned.
 
Last edited:

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
I also laugh out loud when I read that calling racists -- racist -- lost the election for Clinton or will prove to be fatal to Democrats chances going forward. Clinton proved to be a worse candidate than Trump in that she wasn't able to get enough people to support her in key states. She didn't learn the lesson from Bill's campaign that the first thing somebody should think about the candidate is that they are focused on jobs and economic well being.
I never said that's what lost her the election, abandoning the middle-class lost the democrats the election, which is why I think Sanders would have crushed Trump if he won the Democratic primary. His entire platform catered to the poor and middle-class. PC outrage was a contributing factor, as was the fact that the DNC didn't run any "Get out the vote!" campaigns because it would have benefitted Bernie Sanders, as was the fact that they stole the primary, and Clinton's unfavorable numbers, and media collusion, and much more. The fact that Donald Trump was such a deplorable candidate with such horrible ideas is evidence of Hillary Clinton's shortcomings in the eyes of the American people. Almost any other person would have beat Trump.
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
I never said that's what lost her the election, abandoning the middle-class lost the democrats the election, which is why I think Sanders would have crushed Trump if he won the Democratic primary. His entire platform catered to the poor and middle-class. PC outrage was a contributing factor, as was the fact that the DNC didn't run any "Get out the vote!" campaigns because it would have benefitted Bernie Sanders, as was the fact that they stole the primary, and Clinton's unfavorable numbers, and media collusion, and much more. The fact that Donald Trump was such a deplorable candidate with such horrible ideas is evidence of Hillary Clinton's shortcomings in the eyes of the American people. Almost any other person would have beat Trump.
Sanders was for using the government to wage war on the rich to benefit the middle class.

Trump was for fixing government.

People want government fixed.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
I never said that's what lost her the election, abandoning the middle-class lost the democrats the election, which is why I think Sanders would have crushed Trump if he won the Democratic primary. His entire platform catered to the poor and middle-class. PC outrage was a contributing factor, as was the fact that the DNC didn't run any "Get out the vote!" campaigns because it would have benefitted Bernie Sanders, as was the fact that they stole the primary, and Clinton's unfavorable numbers, and media collusion, and much more. The fact that Donald Trump was such a deplorable candidate with such horrible ideas is evidence of Hillary Clinton's shortcomings in the eyes of the American people. Almost any other person would have beat Trump.
You don't think that 25 years of propaganda against her and the FBI putting their thumb on the balance made any difference? Prior to and during the election, she and her campaign skirted rules and laws, which became fodder for the propaganda machine. Her actions with the DNC made her look really bad, not unfairly so. You've said many times she neglected white middle class voters, I'd say she neglected working class voters of all kinds. So, yeah for reasons outside her control but also reasons completely within her control, she was a terrible candidate.

Why was the only alternative to her an unknown old white man? It's my guess that the Clinton machine has been tamping down alternative leaders for years. So, in this case, I hope that Clinton recedes from the political arena and stops harming the growth of the party. That's my proposal for how to make liberalism great again.
 
Last edited:

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Sanders was for using the government to wage war on the rich to benefit the middle class.

Trump was for fixing government.

People want government fixed.
Oh yeah, Trump is draining that swamp, you can tell by the people he's appointing. He's pretty sneaky. He appointed a staff of Washington insiders and Wall Streeters. He's fooling everybody by appearing to support the status quo in Washington.
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
Oh yeah, Trump is draining that swamp, you can tell by the people he's appointing. He's pretty sneaky. He appointed a staff of Washington insiders and Wall Streeters. He's fooling everybody by appearing to support the status quo in Washington.
I am going to wait to see what he does. You can keep those panties unnecessarily knotted for a few months if you so choose.
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Sanders was for using the government to wage war on the rich to benefit the middle class.

Trump was for fixing government.

People want government fixed.
Sanders is for using the government to benefit the majority of the American people by ensuring American corporations pay their fair share of taxes



Trump is not for fixing government. He's in it for himself. You will be front and center witness to it, just like me.
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
Sanders is for using the government to benefit the majority of the American people by ensuring American corporations pay their fair share of taxes
Trump is not for fixing government. He's in it for himself. You will be front and center witness to it, just like me.
Corporations do not pay taxes, people do.

If you mean higher taxes on profit then you do not understand that profit is what allows for growth of corporations.

Sanders wants to steal growth and give it back to people in the form of welfare to make things 'fair'. He has never held a significant job outside of politics.

His plan would not lead to growth, it would lead to further stagnation.
 

RickyBobby26

Well-Known Member
no need to wait, he's already appointed noting but lifetime washington insiders and lobbyists.

except for steve bannon, he made an exception for a wife beating, anti-semitic white supremacist.
An just think: in Trump's 8 years, he'll move the SCOTUS so far right, we'll be back to yesteryear for at least the next 100 years.
 
Top