PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: invflatspin on May 31, 2018, 11:59:54 AM
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/05/31/obama-was-shell-shocked-by-trump-win-asked-what-if-were-wrong-new-book-says.html
I just read some of the excerpts, and wonder how these people can butter bread in the morning, or brush their teeth at night. This guy is a self-described 'constitutional scholar/expert'. He and Clinton cost the Dems thousands of seats of power in the US, from Maine to CA. Is it hubris? Can someone with a large knowledge of America be so clueless? I guess - yes, yes they can be that monumentally idiotic.
-
He was shell shocked by the Trump landslide because he, and many in the DNC believed their own bullshit and hype as well as their phony polls. Add in a fawning media who worshiped the ground BHO walked on and they were so wrapped up in their fake news and propaganda campaigns.
Eight years of the worst president in modern times motivated many to get to the polls and stop the election of Felonious Von Pantsuits.
-
I mean, I was a liberal (small "l") back in the late 70s, a lot of people had common ground with liberals who weren't liberal. But now - I just don't get how someone can be on board with their asinine outlook. Defend MS-13 murder/rapists, all Muslims, including terrorists, anchor babies, illiterate useless mouths jumping the border, welfare deadbeats(long term). This is the constituency they want to uphold? Really? Free stuff for everyone, but high taxes only for the wealthy, but not all the wealthy, just the conservative wealthy. Lying, cheating, corruption in govt service is ok, just if it advances the liberal agenda. WTF?
Reagan famously said 'I did not leave the Liberal party, the Liberal party left me.' I understand exactly what he meant. How disconnected from one's own culture, and history be people and still have a working brain?
-
To grasp what is going on, read Saul Alinsky and Clowerd-Piven. Also read up on Karl Marx and the communist manifesto.
-
To grasp what is going on, read Saul Alinsky and Clowerd-Piven. Also read up on Karl Marx and the communist manifesto.
Exactly. They are the liberal/progressive Bibles. If you read Obama's book, "Dreams of my Father" it becomes even more obvious. Frank Marshall Davis, and Valerie Jarrett just reinforced all those principles.
-
What kills me are all the lefties coming out with cries and pleas for more empathy! More understanding and acceptance! We can't go on like this! We have to heal as a nation!
And so on. Like they invented the whole idea of coexistence, which most of us have been practicing all our lives.
When in fact they are the chief fomenters of division.
-
I mean, I was a liberal (small "l") back in the late 70s, a lot of people had common ground with liberals who weren't liberal. But now - I just don't get how someone can be on board with their asinine outlook. Defend MS-13 murder/rapists, all Muslims, including terrorists, anchor babies, illiterate useless mouths jumping the border, welfare deadbeats(long term). This is the constituency they want to uphold? Really? Free stuff for everyone, but high taxes only for the wealthy, but not all the wealthy, just the conservative wealthy. Lying, cheating, corruption in govt service is ok, just if it advances the liberal agenda. WTF?
Reagan famously said 'I did not leave the Liberal party, the Liberal party left me.' I understand exactly what he meant. How disconnected from one's own culture, and history be people and still have a working brain?
Zell Miller essentially said the same thing.
Answer - They are not the liberal party. The word "Liberal" with a capital L has been attached to the left, but does not properly describe the Democrat party. The party has left true classic liberals adrift and counts on them to reflexively vote Democrat. Many do because the liberal ideas on the Republican side are not clearly expressed and liberals cannot see a viable choice from the R side.
I believe this is one of the biggest opportunities Republicans have - claim the word liberal in the classic sense. But they won't.
-
There does seem to be a movement afoot in the black community that is waking them up.
-
There does seem to be a movement afoot in the black community that is waking them up.
Yes, I think that some in the minority population are taking a fresh look at recent history, and comparing it to republicanism. Some are willing to listen, and even take a chance on some middle road policy positions. The hard left are just so out of touch, it really shocks me when someone like BO says the things he says with a perfectly straight face. The cognitive dissonance is spreading down to the man on the street, and some of them are minorities.
-
Zell Miller essentially said the same thing.
Answer - They are not the liberal party. The word "Liberal" with a capital L has been attached to the left, but does not properly describe the Democrat party. The party has left true classic liberals adrift and counts on them to reflexively vote Democrat. Many do because the liberal ideas on the Republican side are not clearly expressed and liberals cannot see a viable choice from the R side.
I believe this is one of the biggest opportunities Republicans have - claim the word liberal in the classic sense. But they won't.
Would you also consider yourself as gay?
-
Yes, I think that some in the minority population are taking a fresh look at recent history, and comparing it to republicanism. Some are willing to listen, and even take a chance on some middle road policy positions. The hard left are just so out of touch, it really shocks me when someone like BO says the things he says with a perfectly straight face. The cognitive dissonance is spreading down to the man on the street, and some of them are minorities.
Pathological liars can say almost anything with a straight face.
-
Would you also consider yourself as gay?
Not at all, why? You looking for someone to play with?
Would you consider yourself an arrogant ass or are you lying to yourself?
-
Not at all, why? You looking for someone to play with?
Would you consider yourself an arrogant ass or are you lying to yourself?
It’s a legit question.
You insist on using an outdated definition of a word to describe your political leanings (liberal).
But, also outdated, a “gay” person was someone who was happy and carefree.
Obviously, you don’t appear to very happy.
-
It’s a legit question.
You insist on using an outdated definition of a word to describe your political leanings (liberal).
But, also outdated, a “gay” person was someone who was happy and carefree.
Obviously, you don’t appear to very happy.
I don't appear to be homosexual either, so neither definition of the word applies to me.
A classic liberal is a believer in freedom. That was the Democrat party 40 years ago. Now they have spun 180 degrees and no longer believe in everyone being free. I do not call them liberal or even Liberals and I know a lot of other people don't either. They're progressives, a term they actually endorse.
I stand by my statement that Republicans have a huge opportunity to win by occupying the ground of the word "liberal" that the modern Democrats have abandoned. Accept the ideas of the forefathers that all men are created equal and that we all the inherent right to pursue our freedom.
-
I don't appear to be homosexual either, so neither definition of the word applies to me.
A classic liberal is a believer in freedom. That was the Democrat party 40 years ago. Now they have spun 180 degrees and no longer believe in everyone being free. I do not call them liberal or even Liberals and I know a lot of other people don't either. They're progressives, a term they actually endorse.
I stand by my statement that Republicans have a huge opportunity to win by occupying the ground of the word "liberal" that the modern Democrats have abandoned. Accept the ideas of the forefathers that all men are created equal and that we all the inherent right to pursue our freedom.
The “classic” term of gay means carefree and happy.
Since you like the classic terms, do you consider yourself gay? Or are you just unhappy?
-
The “classic” term of gay means carefree and happy.
No shit. And a faggot is a bundle of sticks. Your question was answered. RTFS.
Semi related question for you - why is the left wrong? I know my answer, but I'm curious if you know yours.
-
Here's a weird answer for ya. Technically, the left isn't wrong. As a republic, we are a nation of laws. Those laws should reflect the best in any society, to the advancement of all people. This WAS the bargain that the left offered for at least a while. Security, access, help for those less fortunate, and a willingness to take lawful action when there were discrepancies in the human condition.
Where the left went wrong is their embracement of democracy. Democracy by it's design and by definition pits one group against another, and will in all cases devolve to a mob rule mechanism. Democracy is 3 wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. There is nothing democratic about how a good society works. This was known by the Greeks, the Romans, the Etruscans, and probably by Cro-Magnon man way before there was papyrus and charcoal.
Republican methods work well with 'liberal' policy(small l) when they advocate for EVERYONE equally. This is the theory - and this is where Liberals(democrats, progressives) begin and end as a failure. If the left would stop embracing democracy and get back to a republican way of advocating, I think they would have a real future. Advance a policy that gains all Americans. Not just the blacks, Mexicans, immigrants, women, or some other sub-society. If a law is to be well defined, it will be defined for everyone and it will advance freedom and liberty(not liberalism) for every citizen. This is why prohibition failed so miserably, and the liberals should take a page of history from that massive failure of the republicans when they went so, so, so, wrong. Restrictions on liberty should be the LAST refuge of law, not the first, most draconian effort.
-
No shit. And a faggot is a bundle of sticks. Your question was answered. RTFS.
Wow, so easily triggered over a simple question.
Why does the term gay do that to you? And I mean the classic definition of gay.
-
Wow, so easily triggered over a simple question.
Why does the term gay do that to you? And I mean the classic definition of gay.
Your behavior does it because you're just being a jerk. But I guess that's what you excel at.
Ducking my question I see. Coward.
-
Here's a weird answer for ya. Technically, the left isn't wrong. As a republic, we are a nation of laws. Those laws should reflect the best in any society, to the advancement of all people. This WAS the bargain that the left offered for at least a while. Security, access, help for those less fortunate, and a willingness to take lawful action when there were discrepancies in the human condition.
Where the left went wrong is their embracement of democracy. Democracy by it's design and by definition pits one group against another, and will in all cases devolve to a mob rule mechanism. Democracy is 3 wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. There is nothing democratic about how a good society works. This was known by the Greeks, the Romans, the Etruscans, and probably by Cro-Magnon man way before there was papyrus and charcoal.
Republican methods work well with 'liberal' policy(small l) when they advocate for EVERYONE equally. This is the theory - and this is where Liberals(democrats, progressives) begin and end as a failure. If the left would stop embracing democracy and get back to a republican way of advocating, I think they would have a real future. Advance a policy that gains all Americans. Not just the blacks, Mexicans, immigrants, women, or some other sub-society. If a law is to be well defined, it will be defined for everyone and it will advance freedom and liberty(not liberalism) for every citizen. This is why prohibition failed so miserably, and the liberals should take a page of history from that massive failure of the republicans when they went so, so, so, wrong. Restrictions on liberty should be the LAST refuge of law, not the first, most draconian effort.
So the left is correct? ;)
I agree with you and I think it's a continuation of what I've said - by abandoning the idea that people are free, the Left has adopted the idea that people need to be told how to live and THAT is their major sin. In their arrogance, they believe they know what is "best" for everyone, but they only define best by their own biases. Everyone defines their own version of what is best.
There are some Republicans who work in this same model, but not nearly as many and they are not nearly as fanatically.
BTW, the idea that we are a Republic is not an idea exclusive to any party. It is a fact of our country, but one which Dems seems to want to undo.
-
Exactly on point. The left(elites), thinks that they vision of culture and society are right and correct for everyone, and they feel the need to use the levers of govt to force their grand plan(Johnson's great society) on everyone. And yes, the Rep some times get wrapped up in that too with their miscast moral clause like aversion to abortion. Thankfully, in cases where the right oversteps, the judiciary steps in to right the ship. Too often(Obamacare) the judiciary reviewing laws drafted by the left gets it very, very wrong.
-
Your behavior does it because you're just being a jerk. But I guess that's what you excel at.
So asking you a question in regards to your use of "classic definitions" is being a jerk? OK, so in your quest to be the faux intellectual you constantly portray it triggers you when being questioned on one of your inane diatribes.
And I do sense you have a bit of homophobia playing into it as well.
Ducking my question I see. Coward.
Because your question has no relevance to the conversation, you were merely attempting to quickly change the subject.
You really appear to be an angry little man.
-
Zell Miller essentially said the same thing.
Answer - They are not the liberal party. The word "Liberal" with a capital L has been attached to the left, but does not properly describe the Democrat party. The party has left true classic liberals adrift and counts on them to reflexively vote Democrat. Many do because the liberal ideas on the Republican side are not clearly expressed and liberals cannot see a viable choice from the R side.
I believe this is one of the biggest opportunities Republicans have - claim the word liberal in the classic sense. But they won't.
IIRC the word "liberal" was born as Europe began to awaken from the Dark Ages, and referred to ideas of individual liberty, as opposed to aristocracies, feudal systems, or theocracies. These ideas were not new; ancient Greece and Rome had them. After the fall of those two great civilizations, all these systems were oppressive to the common man. "Liberals" were those who proposed that the people should rule themselves, and the ideas expressed by "liberals" came to a culmination in the American Revolution, and iconicized in the phrase, "We The People".
THAT is classic liberalism. To apply the term "liberal" to today's progressives on the left is the biggest misnomer of all time. They want to centralize power again, they are a ruling elite class who think they can tell the rest of us how to live, and just like feudal lords, take what we produce and (after pocketing most for themselves) redistribute as they see fit. Their religions (environmentalism and MMGW) are used just like the Vatican and Islam were, to hold people's behavior to their preferred standards. They are bringing us full circle back to where we started.
Even the social freedoms the left support are tainted with hypocrisy. They tout women's rights and then support regimes that oppress women. They support legalizing pot, then want to regulate it and spend taxpayers money funding it. Let gays marry, but force others to bake cakes for them: Wherever they do support individual freedom, they find ways to control and oppress others in the process.
I agree with you that the Republicans should take back the term, but they never will. They have their own anti-freedom problems (the above mentioned issues in particular) and they have contributed to the growth of our increasingly authoritarian government, so the term wouldn't really fit them either.
We do have a party that fits the term the best, the Libertarian Party. But we seem unable to let a third party break through.
-
IIRC the word "liberal" was born as Europe began to awaken from the Dark Ages, and referred to ideas of individual liberty, as opposed to aristocracies, feudal systems, or theocracies. These ideas were not new; ancient Greece and Rome had them. After the fall of those two great civilizations, all these systems were oppressive to the common man. "Liberals" were those who proposed that the people should rule themselves, and the ideas expressed by "liberals" came to a culmination in the American Revolution, and iconicized in the phrase, "We The People".
THAT is classic liberalism. To apply the term "liberal" to today's progressives on the left is the biggest misnomer of all time. They want to centralize power again, they are a ruling elite class who think they can tell the rest of us how to live, and just like feudal lords, take what we produce and (after pocketing most for themselves) redistribute as they see fit. Their religions (environmentalism and MMGW) are used just like the Vatican and Islam were, to hold people's behavior to their preferred standards. They are bringing us full circle back to where we started.
Even the social freedoms the left support are tainted with hypocrisy. They tout women's rights and then support regimes that oppress women. They support legalizing pot, then want to regulate it and spend taxpayers money funding it. Let gays marry, but force others to bake cakes for them: Wherever they do support individual freedom, they find ways to control and oppress others in the process.
I agree with you that the Republicans should take back the term, but they never will. They have their own anti-freedom problems (the above mentioned issues in particular) and they have contributed to the growth of our increasingly authoritarian government, so the term wouldn't really fit them either.
We do have a party that fits the term the best, the Libertarian Party. But we seem unable to let a third party break through.
Exactly my point, despite whats-his-name's insistence on playing semantics. The term liberal is not archaic, it's actually experiencing a resurgence. Unless you dislike classic liberalism, then you would call it old and outdated.
The Libertarian party is just too much of a joke. Every member has their own idea of what is right and they can't even agree with themselves. They would each rather be right than to win...they are fanatic about being liberals. Proof - we've just seen the biggest revolution of liberal thought in the past 50 years and the Libertarians weren't part of it.
Right now, my best guess is that the Republican Party has the best shot at capturing the liberal ground, although more than a few Democrats are questioning the past 8 years and wondering what they did so wrong that Donald Trump beat them. They might pull themselves back over to it.
Whoever is successful owns the next two presidencies.